Allahabad High Court
HASHIMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the delay in FIR filing, absence of medical corroboration, and the possibility of the alleged victim’s consent created a prima facie case for bail, leading to the grant of bail.
Summary
The applicant, Hashim, sought bail in a criminal case under Sections 78, 137(2), 65(1) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4(2) of the POCSO Act, alleging false implication. The counsel highlighted a two‑day delay in filing the FIR, absence of medical evidence, and argued that the alleged victim, a 15‑year‑old, might have been a consenting party with a possible age margin of error. The State and the High Court Legal Service Committee opposed bail, but the court noted the delay, lack of corroboration, and the applicant’s clean record. Without passing on the merits, the court found a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and lack of medical evidence justify granting bail in a POCSO case.
- Whether the alleged victim’s consent and uncertain age affect the bail decision.
- Whether the applicant’s innocence, clean criminal record, and willingness to cooperate warrant bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 65(1), 78
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4(2)
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- delay in FIR
- minor consent
- age determination
- Indian Penal Code
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44461 of 2025
Hashim
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Onkar Singh, Sachin Malik
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Marjeet Mishra, Vijyeta Gupta
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.++ out of 269)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice to the
informant has been served on 9.12.2025.
2. Heard Sri Sachin Malik, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Vijyeta
Gupta, learned counsel for High Court Legal Service Committee as well as
Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the
material placed on record. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.563 of 2025, under Sections 78,
137(2), 65(1) BNS and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Baraut, District
Baghpat, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
FIR is delayed by about two days and there is no explanation of the said
delay caused. The victim has narrated the story to her parents on 31.9.2025
itself, even after narration of the said story, the FIR was instituted next day
at 12:52 p.m., as such, it is a clear-cut case of false implication.
5. learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim has
stated that she was enticed away and was raped upon by the applicant. The
victim was riding a bicycle and she left the bicycle and went with the
applicant on a motorcycle. In the site-plan, the place from where the victim
is stated to have been enticed away, is shown to be the house of informant
BAIL No. 44461 of 2025
2
only, which further falsifies the prosecution story. There is no medical
corroboration of the incident either.
6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the victim is a
consenting party. She by her looks seems to be major, although she is stated
to be 15 years old as per the ossification test report. In view of the inherent
margin of error in such tests, it is urged that a leverage of two years on the
upper side may be granted to the applicant while determining the age of the
victim. The applicant himself is a 22 years old youth. He has no criminal
history and is in jail since 3.9.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial
and not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Learned counsel for High Court Legal Service Committee and learned
State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application but the
submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be
disputed.
8. 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 in institution of FIR coupled by the fact that victim
seems to be a consenting party, and without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has
made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant- Hashim, 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.
10. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 14, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…