Allahabad High Court

BHURA ALIAS TEJ BAHADURversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 14 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences and the right to a speedy trial was violated.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC filed by Bhura alias Tej Bahadur, who was accused of offences under Sections 452, 376AB of the IPC and sections 5m/6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed false implication, arguing that the victim’s statement and medical report did not establish the essential ingredients of Sections 375 and 376 IPC or the POCSO provisions, and that the trial had been unduly delayed for over two years. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s contentions or show any fault on his part for the delay. The Court found that the prosecution had not proved the elements of the offences, the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 was violated, and there was no material suggesting the applicant would tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. Consequently, the Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to personal bond, sureties, and conditions of non‑tampering, non‑pressurisation of witnesses, and regular court appearances.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted under Section 439 CrPC when the prosecution has not established the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.
Whether the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is violated, warranting bail.
Whether there is a reasonable apprehension of the applicant tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439
Indian Penal Code — s. 375, 376, 376AB, 452
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5m, 6

Subjects

bail
speedy trial
Section 439 CrPC
IPC Sections 375 376 452 376AB
POCSO Act sections 5m 6
Article 21
false implication
evidence
witness intimidation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44997 of 2024

Bhura Alias Tej Bahadur
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rohit Nandan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anand Kumar Singh, G.A.

Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Case called out in the revised list. Counsel for the informant
is not present.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nagendra
Kumar Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State of U.P.
Perused the record.

3. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has
been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in
Case Crime No.35 of 2024, under Sections 452, 376AB I.P.C.,
and 5m/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Sadh, District Kanpur
Dehat during the pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the first information report. Placing
reliance upon the statement of the victim recorded before the trial
court dated 10.9.2025, it is contended that the essential
ingredients constituting the offences punishable under Sections
375 and 376 I.P.C. and section 5m/6 POCSO Act are not made
out against the applicant. The medical examination of the victim
conducted on 28.2.2024 also does not support the prosecution
case. It is next contended that the applicant is a law abiding
citizen and has always cooperated with the investigation, and
BAIL No. 44997 of 2024
2

has attended the trial. The trial is moving at snail's pace and
shows no sign of early conclusion. The applicant cannot be
faulted for the delay in conclusion of trial. The prosecution
proposes to examine eleven witnesses to bring home the
charges. However, till date only six witnesses have been
examined. It is further contended that inordinate delay in
concluding the trial has led to indefinite imprisonment of the
applicant without there being any credible evidence to
implicate him in the offence and violates the rights of the
applicant to a speedy trial. The applicant is in jail since
29.2.2024 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not
misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned Brief Holder for the State 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 essential ingredients
constituting the offences punishable under Sections 375 and 376
I.P.C. and section 5m/6 POCSO Act are not made out against the
applicant. The medical examination of the victim conducted on
28.2.2024 does not corroborate the prosecution case. Further,
the applicant has remained confined for two years six months
and, as per the status report dated 18.3.2026 sent by the trial,
prosecution proposes to examine eleven witnesses. Till date
only six witnesses have been examined. The prosecution could
not bring on record any material, which would show that that
the trial has been delayed on account of any fault on the part of
the applicant. The right to speedy trial, enshrined under Article
21 of the Constitution, is violated. There is inordinate delay in
trial. 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 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.
BAIL No. 44997 of 2024
3

6. Let the applicant- Bhura @ Tej Bahadur involved in the
aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the
satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions
that:

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence;

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;
and,

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by
the trial court.

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.

September 15, 2026
S.S.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…