Allahabad High Court
BALKISHUN BHARTIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
Bail was denied to the applicant.
Summary
The applicant, Balkishun Bharti, filed a bail application in a criminal case (Crime No. 191 of 2025) under IPC sections 65(2), 352, 351(2) and POCSO Act sections 5(M) and 6, alleging false implication in a sexual offence against a five‑year‑old victim. He claimed innocence, stating that no medical examination of the child was conducted and that the dispute stemmed from a land conflict. The State, represented by the learned A.G.A., opposed bail, emphasizing that the FIR was prompt, the victim was a minor, and the accused was 60 years old. The Court examined the material, found the bail plea devoid of merit, and rejected the application, noting the seriousness of the allegations and the promptness of the FIR. The Court, however, directed that the trial proceed expeditiously in line with Supreme Court precedents. The observations were limited to the bail application and do not prejudice the trial’s merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a POCSO case where the FIR is prompt and the victim is a minor.
- Whether the alleged lack of medical evidence and claim of false implication justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 351(2), 352, 65(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 5(M), 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- false implication
- minor victim
- prompt FIR
- expeditious trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30360 of 2025
Balkishun Bharti
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Bhaju Ram
Pprasad Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 142 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 2.9.2025.
2. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant, Sri
D.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime
No. 191 of 2025, under Sections 65(2), 352, 351(2) BNS and 5(M)/6
POCSO Act, Police Station Kothibhar, District Maharajganj, with the prayer
to enlarge him on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
There are serious allegations against the applicant but they are false, as there
is no medical corroboration. The informant has categorically refused her
medical examination of the victim. Had the incident, as mentioned in the
FIR, occurred, the medical examination of the victim would have certainly
been conducted, and she would have been subjected to treatment as well. It
is a clear-cut case of false implication, as there is a land dispute between the
parties.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is in jail
since 27.6.2025 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
BAIL No. 30360 of 2025
2
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application
on the ground that the FIR is prompt. The victim is only 5 years old, while
the applicant is 60 years old.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the FIR being prompt and the applicant is named in therein, I do not find it a
fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid
of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as
has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the
cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain
and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal
impediment.
9. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 2, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…