Allahabad High Court
LALITversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant had established sufficient grounds for bail and therefore granted bail.
Summary
Lalit applied for bail in a case registered under Sections 137(2), 65(1) of the B.N.S.S. and Sections 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act, alleging false implication. He argued that he was not named in the FIR, which was filed five days after the alleged incident, and that the victim, though recorded as a minor by birth date, appeared to be a consenting adult and had even stated she married him. The State opposed the bail but did not refute the applicant’s contentions. The court, noting the absence of the applicant’s name in the FIR, the victim’s consent statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S., and the lack of any criminal history, found that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Consequently, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions. The order clarified that the bail decision would not prejudice the trial judge’s independent assessment of the evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted when the accused is not named in the FIR and the victim’s statement indicates consent.
- Whether the alleged minor status of the victim, based solely on a school certificate, affects the grant of bail under the POCSO Act.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR is a material factor in denying bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- POCSO
- consent
- minor
- FIR delay
- Section 183 B.N.S.S.
- personal bond
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30446 of 2025
Lalit
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anchal Ojha, Krishna Dev Mishra,
Pramod Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 111 out of 259)
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 21.8.2025.
2. Heard Sri Devottam Pandey, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri
Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil
Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 274 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 65(1) BNS and 5(L)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Sector-113 Noida,
District Gautam Buddha Nagar, during the pendency of trial.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
4. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. The applicant is not named in the FIR, which is delayed by
about five days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
5. The victim is a consenting party as is evident from her statement recorded
under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she has stated that she has married the
applicant and stayed with him for two days. The victim, by her physical
appearance, seems to be major although her date of birth is 14.5.2011 as per
Class VII certificate. There is no valid document to suggest that victim was
minor.
BAIL No. 30446 of 2025
2
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no
criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since
16.7.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
7. The bail application has been vehemently opposed but the submissions
made by learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.
CONCLUSION:
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the fact that applicant is not named in the FIR; the statement of
the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, whereby she seems to be consenting
party 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.
9. Let the applicant- Lalit, 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
verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper with
evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as
required.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
11. 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.)
May 6, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…