Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

MANNU @ MONU HARIJANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The applicant is entitled to bail as a prima facie case for bail is made out.

Summary

Mannu @ Monu Harijan applied for bail in a case registered as Crime No.680 of 2024, involving charges under Sections 363, 506, 376(3) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4(2) of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed innocence, argued that the FIR was delayed by four months, and asserted that the alleged victim was a consenting adult with no medical evidence to support the allegations. The State opposed bail but did not refute the applicant's submissions. The court, after considering the victim's statement indicating consent and the lack of contrary evidence, held that a prima facie case for bail existed. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, sureties, and standard conditions.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted in a case involving theft, criminal intimidation, rape, and POCSO offences.
  • Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the alleged consent of the victim affect the grant of bail.
  • Whether a prima facie case for bail exists despite serious charges.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • IPC
  • POCSO
  • consent
  • FIR delay
  • prima facie
  • criminal trial

Judgment

            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31467 of 2025

Mannu @ Monu Harijan
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                     Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Devesh Pandey, Pravinendra Bahadur
                                Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anurodh Tripathi, G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.160 out of 259)

                          HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Devesh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurodh
Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Deepak Kumar
Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.680 of 2024, under Sections 363,
506, 376(3) I.P.C. and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Robertsganj,
District Sonbhadra, 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 about four months and there is no explanation of the said
delay caused. The victim seems to be a consenting party and the story as
narrated by her cannot be believed. There is no medical corroboration of the
incident either. The victim, by her looks, seems to be major and she is stated
to be 18-19 years old as per the ossification test report also. The applicant
has no criminal history and is in jail since 3.11.2024. He undertakes to
cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have
vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the
submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
                                                                                             BAIL No. 31467 of 2025
                                                                      2


                                    6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
                                    learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
                                    consideration the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183
                                    B.N.S.S., which indicates her consent, 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.

                                    7. Let the applicant- Mannu @ Monu Harijan, 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.

                                    8. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
                                    herein shall not affect the trial on merits.



                                                                                              (Krishan Pahal,J.)
                                    April 23, 2026
                                    Vikas Verma




Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.