Allahabad High Court
GOLU BALMIKIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the FIR was belated, there is no corroborative evidence, the victim’s conduct indicates consent, and there is no risk of tampering or intimidation.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Golu Balmiki, who was arrested in connection with a case registered under several sections of the B.N.S. and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The applicant contended that he was not named in the FIR, that the FIR was lodged two days after the alleged incident, and that the alleged victim, a major, had voluntarily accompanied him to Delhi, indicating consent. The court noted the delay in filing the FIR, the absence of the applicant’s name in the FIR, the lack of corroborative evidence linking him to the offence, and his clean criminal record despite seven months of pre‑trial detention. It further held that there was no material risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond and sureties with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of the applicant’s name in the FIR warrant bail.
- Whether the victim’s alleged consent and lack of corroborative evidence justify granting bail.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or delaying the trial.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 137(2), 180, 183, 61(2), 65(1), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5, 6
Subjects
- bail
- FIR delay
- victim consent
- POCSO Act
- pre‑trial detention
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3914 of 2026
Golu Balmiki
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sudheer Rana
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. As per office report dated 10.03.2026, notice of the present
application has been served personally upon the opposite party
no.4/informant. However, no one appears on behalf of the
opposite party no.4 nor any counter affidavit has been filed on her
behalf.
2. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Anupam Anand,
learned Brief Holder 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. 223 of 2024,
under Sections 137(2), 87, 61(2), 65(1) of B.N.S., and Section 5/6
of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police
Station- Lalauli, District- Fatehpur, during the pendency of trial.
4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not
named in the first information report and has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have
occurred on 19.10.2024. The First information report was lodged
on 21.10.2024. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. It is
contended that the victim is major. The age of the victim was
incorrectly got registered in the school records by the victim's
BAIL No. 3914 of 2026
2
parents to give her advantage in life. There is no lawful basis for
the age related entry of the victim in the school records. The
name of the applicant was disclosed by the victim in her
statements under Section 180 B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S. Placing
reliance on the statements of the victim under Section 180
B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S. it is contended that the victim had
gone voluntarily with the applicant to Delhi and stayed there with
the applicant for 45 days. The victim was present at public places,
but she did not raise any protest or alarm. The conduct of the
victim shows that she was a consenting party. At this stage, there
is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the
offence. The applicant is in jail since 22.07.2025 having no
criminal antecedents and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will
not misuse the said liberty.
5. Learned A.G.A. 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 belatedly. The applicant was not named in
the first information report. As per the statements of the victim
under Section 180 B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S., the victim had
gone voluntarily with the applicant to Delhi and stayed there with
the applicant for 45 days. The victim was present at public places,
but she did not raise any protest or alarm. The conduct of the
victim shows that she was a consenting party. Further, at this
stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with
the offence. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal antecedents
and has remained confined for more than seven months and after
the submission of the charge sheet 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 Golu Balmiki, involved in the aforesaid case
BAIL No. 3914 of 2026
3
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 the conditions that he:
(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
(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.
March 18, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…