Allahabad High Court
DEENAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and granted it.
Summary
The applicant, Deena, filed a second bail application in a case registered as Crime No.81 of 2022 under Section 376DA of the IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act. He had been in custody since 19 March 2022, amounting to more than four years, and argued that the prolonged detention violated his Article 21 right to personal liberty. The counsel highlighted the delay in the trial, noting that only one witness had been examined and that the FIR was filed two days after the alleged incident with no medical evidence. The State and the informant opposed bail, but the court found the applicant’s arguments persuasive and, without commenting on the merits, held that he had made out a case for bail. Consequently, the court granted bail on condition of a personal bond, two sureties, and compliance with standard bail conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the offences under Section 376DA IPC and POCSO Act.
- Whether the prolonged pre‑trial detention violates the applicant’s right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether the delay in trial and lack of medical corroboration justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376DA
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5, 6
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Article 21
- Section 376DA IPC
- POCSO Act
- delay in trial
- right to liberty
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30687 of 2025
Deena
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Babu Lal Ram, Jyoti Bhushan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shyam Sunder Yadav
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.112 out of 243)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Jyoti Bhushan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kunwar
Ajay Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shyam Sunder Yadav, learned
counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.81 of 2022, under Sections 376DA
I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Mehnagar, District Azamgarh,
during the pendency of trial.
4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one
was rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
23.1.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.26143 of 2022.
5. As a new ground, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the
applicant is languishing in jail since 19.3.2022, as such, he is incarcerated in
jail for more than 04 years and 01 month. There is no likelihood of
conclusion of trial in near future as only one witness has been examined to
date. As such, the fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated.
6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR is
delayed by about two days and there is no medical corroboration of the
incident. There is no medical corroboration of the incident either. As such,
BAIL No. 30687 of 2025
2
the applicant is entitled to bail. There is no criminal history of the applicant.
He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently
opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the learned
counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.
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 period of detention of applicant and also there being no
likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future as only one witness has been
examined to date, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, prima-facie 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- Deena, be released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to
verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not tamper with
evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as
required.
10. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 12, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…