Allahabad High Court
CHHOTUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application is allowed.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Chhotu, who was arrested in connection with a POCSO case (Crime No. 228 of 2025) under Section 65(2) of the BNS and Sections 5M/6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant pleaded innocence, arguing that the FIR was lodged ten hours after the alleged incident and that there was no medical evidence because the victim refused examination. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s claim of no prior criminal record and the lack of corroborative medical proof. Weighing the delay in filing the FIR, the seriousness of the offence, and the applicant’s clean record, the Court found no compelling reason to keep the accused in custody. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or witness intimidation.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a POCSO case where the FIR was delayed and there is no medical corroboration.
- Whether the applicant's claim of innocence and lack of criminal history justify release on bail.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offence outweighs the presumption of innocence in granting bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- delay in FIR
- medical evidence
- no criminal history
- court conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39356 of 2025
Chhotu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjay Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 66 out of 262)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice
to the informant has been served on 09.11.2025 but none is present on
behalf of the informant.
2. Heard Sri Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jai
Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and also perused the
material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 228 of 2025, under Section
65(2) of BNS and Sections 5M/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Saifai,
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.
He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR
is delayed by about ten hours and there is no explanation of the said delay
caused.
5. Learned counsel has further submitted that there is no medical
corroboration of the alleged incident. It is contended that although the
victim is stated to be of tender age. It is argued that had the alleged
offence been committed, some injury would have been observed by the
doctor during medical examination. It is further submitted that the refusal
of the victim to undergo medical examination casts doubt on the
BAIL No. 39356 of 2025
2
prosecution case and raises a presumption in favour of the applicant.
6. Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant is languishing in
jail since 24.9.2025, having no criminal history, deserves to be released
on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.
7. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail
application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned
counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no
criminal history.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, severity of
punishment, the delay in lodging the FIR and also considering the fact
that there being no medical corroboration of the incident, prima facie I
find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is
allowed.
9. Let the applicant- Chhotu, be released on bail 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.
10. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 2, 2026
Siddhant
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…