Allahabad High Court

ROSHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 17 March 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Roshan in Criminal Case No. 655 of 2025, which alleged offences under Sections 137(2), 65(1), 352 of the IPC and Sections 5(I)/6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated, arguing that the victim, a major, had misrepresented her age in school records and that her statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S. indicated she voluntarily accompanied him to Gorakhpur and Delhi without raising alarm, showing consent. No informant appeared to contest the application and the applicant had no prior criminal record, having been in custody for over three months. The Court, after reviewing the victim’s statements and finding no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation, held that the applicant was entitled to bail. Accordingly, the Court ordered his release on personal bond and sureties, subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving alleged offences under the IPC and POCSO Act given the victim's alleged consent and age dispute.
Whether the pre‑trial detention of more than three months and lack of criminal antecedents justify bail.
Whether there is a likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses if released on bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 352, 65(1)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5(I), 6

Subjects

bail
false implication
victim consent
POCSO Act
pre‑trial detention
criminal antecedents
age dispute

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4128 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mani Ram Verma, Sudhir Kumar
Agarwal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. As per the office report dated 10.03.2026, notice of the present
application has been served upon the informant personally. However, no one
appears on behalf of the informant nor any counter affidavit has been filed
on his behalf.

2. Heard Sri Mani Ram Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri
Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party.

3. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 655 of 2025, under Sections 137(2),
65(1), 352 B.N.S. and 5(I)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali, District
Maharajganj during the pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. 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 disclosing her age and the
entries made are unbelievable. Placing reliance on the statement of the
victim under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. it is submitted that the victim
had gone with the applicant to Gorakhpur and stayed there with him in a
hotel for five days. Thereafter, along with the applicant she went to Delhi. It
is further contended that the victim was present at public places. She did not
raise any alarm nor did she resist the applicant. Her conduct shows that she
was a consenting party. The applicant is in jail since 04.12.2025 having no
BAIL No. 4128 of 2026
2

criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said
liberty.

5. Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but
could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
record, this Court prima facie finds that the victim in her statements under
Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. stated that she had gone with the applicant to
Gorakhpur and stayed there with him in a hotel for five days. Thereafter,
along with the applicant she went to Delhi. The victim was present at public
places. She did not raise any alarm nor did she resist the applicant. Her
conduct shows that she was a consenting party. The applicant has no
criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for
more than three months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no
hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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,
therefore, 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- Roshan, 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 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
SKT/- (Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…