Allahabad High Court
CHANDU MANSOORI ALIAS CHANDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The court held that the delay in the FIR, lack of allegation of forceful assault, and the applicant’s clean record justify granting bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Chandu Mansoori, who was charged under Section 87 of the B.N.S. and Sections 5j(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act for an alleged incident on 4 May 2026. The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged on 14 May 2026, showing an inordinate delay, and that the victim voluntarily stayed with him, with no allegation of forceful assault. The State opposed bail but could not refute these points. The court found that the delay, the absence of any coercive act, and the applicant’s clean record warranted bail, noting no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to a personal bond, sureties, and conditions of appearance, non‑tampering, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the inordinate delay in filing the FIR defeats the prosecution’s case and justifies bail.
- Whether the nature of the allegations under Sections 87 B.N.S. and 5j(ii)/6 POCSO Act warrant denial of bail.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or fleeing if released on bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- delay in FIR
- false implication
- criminal procedure
- personal bond
- sureties
- witness tampering
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31760 of
2026
Chandu Mansoori Alias Chand
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Devi Prasad Tripathi, Manish
Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. submits that the
notice of the present application has been served upon the
informant/opposite party no.2 and the Child Welfare Committee,
Kanpur Dehat/ opposite party no. 4 on 03.09.2026. The receiving
endorsements produced by learned A.G.A. are taken on record.
However, no one appears on behalf of the said opposite parties
nor any counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf.
2. Heard Sri Manish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the
applicant, and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the
State. Perused the material available on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to
enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.174 of 2026,
under Sections 87 B.N.S. and 5j(ii)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station-
Shivali, District- Kanpur Dehat, during the pendency of trial.
4. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. Earlier the applicant was
granted bail under Sections 137(2), 65(1) B.N.S., 3/4(2) POCSO
Act and 3/5(I) of Religious Conversion Act by this Court vide
order dated 06.08.2026. After investigation, Sections 87 B.N.S.
and 5j(ii)/6 POCSO Act have been added. The incident is alleged
to have occurred on 4.5.2026, whereas the first information report
BAIL No. 31760 of 2026
2
was lodged on 14.5.2026. The inordinate delay in lodging the
first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. The victim
is a major. Further, the victim in her statement recorded under
Section 183 B.N.S.S. has stated that she left her house on
4.4.2026 and went to Delhi by bus because her mother's second
husband refused to keep her with him and drove her out of the
house. On 5.4.2026, she returned from Delhi to her mother's
place, but he again turned her out of the house. Then she went to
applicant's house, solemnized marriage with him in a temple and
stayed with him for 11-12 days. There is no allegation of any
forceful assault against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since
14.5.2026 having no criminal antecedents and in case he is
enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
5. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail
but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions
from the record.
6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the
record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information
report has been lodged with inordinate delay. As per the
statement of the victim under Section 183 B.N.S.S., she had gone
to the applicant's house voluntarily and stayed with him. There is
no allegation of any forceful assault against the applicant.
Moreover, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has
remained confined for more than four months and there is no
hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable
apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the
applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the
evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without
commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the
applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
7. Let the applicant- Chandu Mansoori Alias Chand, involved in
the aforesaid case, be released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he:
(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
BAIL No. 31760 of 2026
3
(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the
prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation
application before this Court.
September 30, 2026
SKT/-
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…