Allahabad High Court

DHARMENDRA KUMAR SAROJversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to bail as there is no reasonable apprehension of tampering, intimidation, and the FIR was belated.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Dharmendra Kumar Saroj in a case registered under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) of the CrPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed false implication, pointing out the FIR was lodged six days after the alleged incident and that the victim, aged 17 according to an ossification test, had voluntarily gone with him and there was no allegation of force. The State opposed bail but could not refute these points. The Court observed that the delayed FIR, the victim’s voluntary statements, the applicant’s clean record and the four‑month pre‑trial detention indicated no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to personal bond, sureties and standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a POCSO case where the alleged victim is a minor but has voluntarily consented.
Whether the delay in filing the FIR defeats the prosecution’s case and warrants bail.
Whether there is a reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 137(2), 64(1), 87
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4

Subjects

bail
POCSO Act
delayed FIR
minor victim
Criminal Procedure
evidence tampering
witness intimidation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44081 of 2025

Dharmendra Kumar Saroj
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kartikey Dubey, Man Mohan Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Prakesh Kumar Yadav, Saurabh
Paul

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.K.Pradhan, Advocate
holding brief of Sri Prakash Kumar Yadav, counsel for the informant and Sri
N.K.Sharma, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 272 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87,
64(1) BNS and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Gyanpur, District
Bhadohi during the pendency of trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on
24.10.2025. The first information report was lodged on 31.10.2025. The
delay is fatal to the prosecution case. The victim is major. As per the
ossification test report, the victim was found aged 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. It is next contended that the victim
in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS stated that she had
gone voluntarily with the applicant to Maihar, performed marriage and
established relations with him. There is no allegation of forceful assault
against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 05.11.2025 having no
criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the
said liberty.

4. Learned AGA and the counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer
BAIL No. 44081 of 2025
2

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 ossification test report, the victim was found aged 17
years. The victim in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS
stated that she had gone voluntarily with the applicant, performed
marriage and established relations with him. There is no allegation of
forceful assault against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal
antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than
four months and 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 Dharmendra Kumar Saroj, 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.

(Vivek Varma,J.)
March 19, 2026
Lbm/-

Digitally signed by :-
LAL BAHADUR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…