Allahabad High Court
AJAYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that, despite the gravity of the charges, the applicant’s right to bail is justified due to the unexplained FIR delay, lack of prior criminal history, and no demonstrated risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ajay, who is accused under IPC sections 363, 366, 376 and sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act for alleged sexual offences. The applicant claimed innocence, highlighted a delay of more than a year in filing the FIR, and pointed out his clean criminal record and willingness to cooperate with the trial. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. The Court examined the delay, the seriousness of the charges, and the risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Finding that the applicant had made out a case for bail and that no substantial risk was shown, the Court ordered bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions. The order expressly stated that the bail decision would not prejudice the trial judge’s independent assessment of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving offences under IPC sections 363, 366, 376 and POCSO Act sections 5 and 6.
- Whether the unexplained delay in filing the FIR warrants bail.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 363, 366, 376
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 5, 6
Subjects
- bail
- delay in FIR
- IPC
- POCSO Act
- criminal procedure
- sureties
- evidence tampering
- witness intimidation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30288 of 2025
Ajay
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pawan Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 138 out of 262)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice to the
informant has been served on 28.8.2025.
2. Heard Sri Vikas Kumar Shukla, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri
Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri R.M. Yadav,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 62 of 2025, under Sections 363,
366, 376 IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Nichlaul, District
Maharajganj, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
FIR is delayed by more than one year and there is no explanation of the said
delay caused. The only allegation is that he has refused to maintain the
victim, who has given birth to a baby girl.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no
criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since
18.4.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could
not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
BAIL No. 30288 of 2025
2
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay in FIR and without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a
case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant- Ajay, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to
following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties
be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent
opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 2, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…