Allahabad High Court

NISHARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 8 September 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and granted bail subject to conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Nishar, who was arrested in connection with a case involving offences under Sections 115(2), 333, 351(3), 74, 75(2) of the IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed innocence, highlighted a delay of more than a month in filing the FIR, and pointed out the lack of medical evidence to substantiate the victim's injuries. The State opposed bail, but the court noted the simple nature of the injuries, the FIR delay, and the applicant's clean record. Without expressing an opinion on the merits, the court found that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail was granted on personal bond and two sureties, with conditions to not tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, and appear before the trial court.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in filing the FIR and absence of medical evidence justify granting bail in a case involving serious IPC and POCSO offences
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses
Whether the applicant's lack of criminal history and willingness to cooperate warrant bail

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 173(4)
Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 333, 351(3), 74, 75(2)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 7, 8

Subjects

bail
FIR delay
medical evidence
IPC
POCSO Act
sureties
court conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31889 of 2026

Nishar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dileep Kumar Shukla, Sandip Kumar
Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 68
(Sl. No. 85 out of 318)

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 29.8.2026.

2. Heard Sri Sandip Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
A.K. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed
on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 119 of 2026, under Sections
115(2), 333, 351(3), 74, 75(2) BNS and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station
Bakewar, District Etawah, 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 more than one month and there is no explanation of the
said delay caused. The said FIR was instituted after moving an application
u/s 173(4) BNSS, as an afterthought.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the injuries
sustained by the informant are simple in nature. The allegations made by the
victim do not stand substantiated by any medical evidence, whatsoever, as
such, applicant is entitled for bail. There is no criminal history of the
applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.7.2026 and he is ready
to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail.
BAIL No. 31889 of 2026
2

6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but the
submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be
disputed.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay in FIR and the injuries sustained by the informant
being simple in nature 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.

8. Let the applicant- Nishar, 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.

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

10. 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.)
September 9, 2026
Shalini

Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…