Allahabad High Court
BABU RAM RAJBHARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered bail application No. 4005 of 2026 filed by Babu Ram Rajbhar in criminal case No. 205 of 2025, which is instituted under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m) of the B.N.S. and Sections 5L/6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, that the FIR was lodged with an unreasonable delay, and that the alleged victim, a major, had voluntarily accompanied him to Bhopal, showing no sign of force or protest. The State opposed bail but could not produce evidence to counter the applicant’s claims or demonstrate a risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or flight. The court noted the belated FIR, the victim’s statements indicating consent, the absence of corroborative evidence, and the applicant’s clean record, concluding that there was no reasonable apprehension of misuse of liberty. Accordingly, the court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions of appearance, non‑tampering, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case under the B.N.S. and POCSO Act despite alleged delay in filing the FIR.
- Whether the victim’s alleged consent and voluntary travel negate the charge of sexual assault under the POCSO Act.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or fleeing the trial.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- sexual assault
- delay in FIR
- consent
- evidence tampering
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4005 of 2026
Babu Ram Rajbhar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kirtikar Pande
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. submits that the notice of the
present application has been served upon the informant/opposite party no.2
and C.W.C./opposite party no.3 on 30.01.2026. The receiving endorsements
produced by learned AG.A. are taken on record. However, no one appears
on behalf of the said opposite parties nor any counter affidavit has been filed
on their behalf.
2. Heard counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and 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. 205 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87,
64(2)(m) B.N.S. and Section 5L/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station-
Chitbadagaon, District- Ballia, during the pendency of trial.
4. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on
14.11.2025. The First information report was lodged on 21.11.2025. The
delay is fatal to the prosecution case. It is next contended that the victim is
major. The age of the victim was incorrectly got registered in the school
records by the victim's parents to give her advantage in life. There is no
lawful basis for the age related entry of the victim in the school records.
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 Bhopal and stayed there with him. There is no allegation of
any forceful sexual assault against the applicant. The victim was present at
public places, but she did not raise any protest or alarm. The conduct of the
BAIL No. 4005 of 2026
2
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 12.12.2025 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. As per the statements of the victim under Section 180 B.N.S.S.
and 183 B.N.S.S. she had gone voluntarily with the applicant to Bhopal and
stayed there with him. There is no allegation of any forceful sexual assault
against the applicant. 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 three 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 Babu Ram Rajbhar, involved in the aforesaid case 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…