Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SUNIL KUMAR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The court held that prima facie the applicant has made out a case for bail and therefore granted bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sunil Kumar Singh, who was arrested in connection with a case under Section 351(3) of the BNS Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed innocence, highlighted an eight‑day delay in filing the FIR and the absence of any medical evidence supporting the allegations. The State opposed bail, but the court noted the delay and lack of corroborative evidence as factors that raised reasonable doubt. Without passing on the merits, the court held that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail. Accordingly, the court ordered his release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions such as not tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted in a case under Section 351(3) BNS and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act given the delay in filing the FIR and lack of medical evidence.
  • Whether the applicant's claim of innocence, clean criminal record, and cooperation with the trial justify the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • delay in FIR
  • lack of medical evidence
  • POCSO
  • criminal procedure
  • presumption of innocence

Judgment

            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31924 of 2026

Sunil Kumar Singh
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                     :    Anil Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                :    G.A.

Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.95 out of 318)

                         HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised. Learned State Law Officer has informed that notice
to the informant has been served on 29.8.2026.

2. Heard Sri Anil Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.P.
Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material
placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 96 of 2026, under Sections 351(3)
BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Chit Bara Gaon, District Ballia,
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 eight days and there is no explanation of the said
delay caused. There is no medical corroboration of the alleged incident
either. The allegations are per se false and the applicant has nothing to do
with the said offence. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail
since 28.7.2026. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the
liberty of bail.

5. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application
but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not
be disputed.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
                                                                                              BAIL No. 31924 of 2026
                                                                      2


                                    learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
                                    consideration the delay of eight days in institution of FIR coupled with the
                                    fact that there is no medical corroboration of the alleged incident either, 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- Sunil Kumar Singh, be released on bail in the
                                    aforementioned case crime 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.)
                                    September 9, 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.