Allahabad High Court
NIZAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and granted it.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered a bail application filed by Nizam, who was charged under IPC Sections 137(1), 65(1), 351(2) and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act for alleged rape. The prosecution alleged that the victim was assaulted after being taken from a nursery, with the FIR lodged five days after the incident and the medical examination conducted six days later. The applicant contended innocence, argued that the FIR and medical delay indicated false implication, and highlighted inconsistencies in the victim’s statements. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the applicant’s submissions. After weighing the delay, the vacillating victim statements, and the applicant’s willingness to cooperate, the Court concluded that the applicant had made out a case for bail and ordered his release on personal bond with conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving serious offences under the IPC and POCSO Act.
- Whether the five‑day delay in filing the FIR and the six‑day delay in medical examination justify granting bail.
- Whether inconsistencies in the victim’s statements affect the bail decision.
- Whether the applicant’s criminal history and current custody impact bail eligibility.
Legislation cited
- BNS Act — s. 351
- Indian Penal Code — s. 137, 351, 65
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4(2)
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- POCSO
- IPC
- delay in FIR
- victim statement
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41878 of 2025
Nizam
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anita Singh, Dinesh Kumar Misra,
Irshad Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Vishwakarma, G.A.,
Udisha Tripathi
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.119 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for
the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Irshad Ahmad and Ms. Anita Singh, learned counsels for the
applicant, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the
informant, Ms. Udisha Tripathi, learned counsel for High Court Legal
Service Committee as well as Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law
Officer for the State and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.385 of 2025, under Sections
137(1), 65(1), 351(2) BNS and 4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station
Mundapandey, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. On 19.08.2025 at about 01:00 p.m., the applicant and victim were seen
coming out of the nursery of popular plants by the owner of the said nursery,
and the victim was taken to her house by him, whereby her condition started
deteriorated. After asking from the victim, she informed that she was
subjected to rape by the applicant and was threatened by him.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
BAIL No. 41878 of 2025
2
present case.
6. The FIR is delayed by about five days and there is no explanation of the
said delay caused.
7. Even the medical examination of the victim was conducted on
25.08.2025, i.e. after a delay of six days of the incident.
8. Although there are five minor injuries sustained by the victim, but none of
the injuries are on vital part of the body. Even the said medical examination
report does not indicate the duration of the injuries anywhere. As such, it is a
clear-cut case of false implication.
9. Even otherwise, the victim seems to be a consenting party, but the said
story stands changed by the victim in her statement recorded under Section
183 BNSS, whereby she added color to the story stating that handkerchief
was put on her face, making her unconscious, and she regained
consciousness in the agricultural field.
10. She has also stated that on her raising of alarm, two more boys had
reached there and they had assaulted the applicant and other accused
persons.
11. The criminal history assigned to the applicant has been explained and he
is in jail since 25.8.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not
misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
12. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the
learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.
CONCLUSION:
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay of five days in institution of FIR and there being
vacillating statement of the victim at different stages, and without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the
applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
BAIL No. 41878 of 2025
3
14. Let the applicant- Nizam, 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.
15. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…