Allahabad High Court
AMARNATH SAHANIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Amarnath Sahani, who was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 137(2), 61(1), 70(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated, pointing out inconsistencies between the FIR, the victim's statement under Section 180 B.N.S. and a later statement under Section 183 B.N.S., and a medical report that did not support the prosecution. The State opposed bail but could not produce any corroborative evidence linking the applicant to the alleged offence. The Court observed that the applicant had no prior criminal record, had been in custody for over three months, and that the prosecution had not shown any risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to standard conditions and sureties. The order directed his release on personal bond and two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the inconsistencies in the FIR and victim statements, coupled with lack of corroborative evidence, justify granting bail to the accused.
- Whether the State has demonstrated a reasonable apprehension that the accused would tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or cause trial delay.
- Whether the provisions of the B.N.S. and POCSO Act preclude bail in the present circumstances.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- POCSO Act
- inconsistencies in evidence
- false implication
- trial delay
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4269 of 2026
Amarnath Sahani
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vivekanand Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. (Senior Advocate)
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Learned A.G.A. on the basis of instructions submits that
notice of the present application has been served upon the
informant- opposite party no. 4 and the Child Welfare
Committee, Gorakhpur- opposite party no. 3 on 31.01.2026. The
receiving endorsements produced by the learned A.G.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 learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi,
learned A.G.A. 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. 699 of 2025,
under Sections 137(2), 61(1), 70(2) B.N.S. and 5/6 POCSO Act,
Police Station Barahalganj, District Gorakhpur during the
pendency of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant
has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the first
information report and the statement of the victim under Section
180 B.N.S.S., on 10.12.2025 at about 7 p.m. near the Kali Mata
place, the victim aged 16 years was enticed and forcibly taken
BAIL No. 4269 of 2026
2
away on motorcycle by the applicant and three co-accused
persons. Upon receiving information, the informant chased them
on his motorcycle. Near Pindari, the victim somehow managed to
jump, due to which she sustained injuries on her hands, legs and
face. However, the victim in her statement under Section 183
B.N.S.S. has narrated a contrary version. It is contended that the
said statement has been made to aggravate the offence and to
save the failing prosecution case. The inconsistencies in the first
information report and the statement of the victim under Section
180 B.N.S.S. on one hand and the statement of the victim under
Section 183 B.N.S.S. on the other discredit the prosecution case.
The medical report does not support the prosecution case. At this
stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with
the offence. The applicant is in jail since 14.12.2025 having no
criminal history and if he is released 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 learned counsel for the parties and after perusal
of the record, this Court prima facie finds that there are
inconsistencies in the first information report and the statement of
the victim under Section 180 B.N.S.S. on one hand and the
statement of the victim under Section 183 B.N.S.S. on the other.
The medical report does not support the prosecution case. At this
stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with
the offence. 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- Amarnath Sahani, involved in the aforesaid
case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and
BAIL No. 4269 of 2026
3
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 19, 2026
SKT/-
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…