Allahabad High Court

RAJBABU @ BABUANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to bail as there is no corroborative evidence and no reasonable apprehension of tampering or intimidation.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Rajbabu @ Babuan, who is charged under Sections 137(2), 87, 64 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act for an alleged incident on 28‑11‑2025. The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged belatedly, the victim was a minor aged 15‑17 with a margin of error favoring the accused, and that the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the Evidence Act indicated a consensual relationship with no forceful assault. The prosecution could not produce any corroborative evidence linking the accused to the offence, and the applicant had no prior criminal record. The Court found the delay in the FIR and the lack of evidence to be fatal to the prosecution’s case and held that there was no reasonable apprehension of tampering, intimidation, or trial delay. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to personal bond, sureties, and conditions of appearance, non‑tampering, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution’s case for bail denial.
Whether the victim’s alleged consent and statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the Evidence Act negate the seriousness of the POCSO charges.
Whether the accused poses a risk of tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or delaying the trial.
Whether bail should be granted despite the nature of the offences under the POCSO Act.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 180, 183
Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 64, 87
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4

Subjects

bail
POCSO
consent
delay in FIR
evidence
criminal procedure
age of victim

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4241 of 2026

Rajbabu @ Babuan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rupa
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Katyaini Singh, Suresh Srivastava

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

1. Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Suresh Srivastava, counsel for the
informant, Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and Ms. Rashmi
Mishra, counsel for High Court Legal Services Committee. 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. 313 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87,
64 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Madihan, District-
Mirzapur, 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
28.11.2025. The First information report was lodged on 30.11.2025. The
delay is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the ossification test report, the
victim was found aged about 15 to 17 years. The range of error in
determining the age is about two years and the same should be read in favour
of the applicant at this stage. 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 Jaipur, married him and
established relations with him. There is no allegation of any forceful sexual
assault against the applicant. It is next contended that 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. At this stage, there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant
is in jail since 10.12.2025 having no criminal antecedents and in case he is
BAIL No. 4241 of 2026
2

enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned counsel for opposite parties have opposed the prayer for bail 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 to
Jaipur, married him and established relations 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. 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.

6. Let the applicant Rajbabu @ Babuan, 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…