Allahabad High Court
PRITHVI PAL @ CHAUHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
Prima facie, the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Prithvi Pal @ Chauhan in a criminal case (Crime No.101 of 2026) under IPC section 351(3) and POCSO Act sections 5 and 6. The applicant claimed innocence, alleging false implication by a cousin and highlighted a two‑day delay in filing the FIR with no medical evidence to support the allegations. The State opposed bail, but the court noted the delay, lack of corroborative medical proof, and the applicant’s clean record. Without passing on the merits, the court found a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, the court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case under IPC 351(3) and POCSO 5/6 given the delay in FIR and absence of medical evidence.
- Whether the applicant’s claim of false implication and lack of prior criminal record justify bail.
- Whether the conditions imposed are sufficient to safeguard the trial process.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 351(3)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 5, 6
Subjects
- bail
- IPC 351
- POCSO Act
- delay in FIR
- false implication
- criminal procedure
- court conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33140 of 2026
Prithvi Pal @ Chauhan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raj Kumar Sharma, Sunil Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.5 out of 114)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice to the
informant has been served on 31.8.2026.
2. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anit
Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed
on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.101 of 2026, under Sections
351(3) BNS and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Saadh, District Kanpur
Nagar, 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 two days and there is no explanation of the said
delay caused. The allegations levelled against the applicant are per se false.
The applicant is the cousin of the informant and has been implicated in the
case out of vengeance. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail
since 6.4.2026. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the
liberty of bail.
5. 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.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
BAIL No. 33140 of 2026
2
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay in institution of FIR coupled with the fact that there
is no medical corroboration of the alleged incident, 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- Prithvi Pal @ Chauhan, 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 17, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…