Allahabad High Court
RAMESHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
In the absence of corroborative evidence, a belated FIR, and no reasonable apprehension of tampering, the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ramesh in a case under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) of the B.N.S. and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed false implication, citing a six‑day delay in filing the FIR and alleging that the victim’s age was incorrectly recorded, making the alleged offence questionable. The victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S. indicated a voluntary relationship with the applicant and no forceful assault, and there was no corroborative evidence linking the applicant to the crime. The court noted the applicant’s clean record, the belated FIR, and the lack of any reasonable apprehension of tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the court ordered that the applicant be released on bail subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case under the B.N.S. and POCSO Act given the delay in filing the FIR and lack of corroborative evidence.
- Whether the victim’s alleged age discrepancy and voluntary relationship affect the charge of sexual assault.
- Whether there is a reasonable apprehension that the accused would tamper with evidence, delay trial, or intimidate witnesses.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- delay in FIR
- false implication
- no criminal antecedents
- evidentiary insufficiency
- sexual assault
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4229 of 2026
Ramesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pradeep Chauhan, Shiva Kant Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Binod Kumar Yadav, Raj Nath Bhakta
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard counsel for the applicant; Sri Raj Nath Bhakta, counsel for the
informant; Ms. Sweta Singh, counsel for the High Court Legal Services
Committee and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Perused the material available on record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 332 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87,
64(1) B.N.S. and Section 4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station- Pawai, District-
Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on
07.12.2025. The First information report was lodged on 13.12.2025. 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 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, married
him and established relations with him. There is no allegation of any forceful
sexual assault against the applicant. At this stage, there is no corroborative
evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since
13.12.2025 having no criminal antecedents and in case he is enlarged on
bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have opposed the prayer for bail
BAIL No. 4229 of 2026
2
but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the
record.
5. 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., the victim had gone voluntarily with the applicant,
married the applicant and established relations with him. There is no
allegation of any forceful sexual assault against the applicant. 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 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.
6. Let the applicant Ramesh, 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.
7. 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 19, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…