Allahabad High Court

ROHIT @ MANISH @ MOHITversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 13 May 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The court held that prima facie the applicant is entitled to bail and allowed the bail application.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Rohit @ Manish @ Mohit in a criminal case (Crime No. 335 of 2025) involving serious offences under the IPC and the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed innocence, highlighting discrepancies in the collection and sealing of the victim’s clothes and questioning the delay in filing the FIR. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. The court, noting the delay in FIR registration, alleged mishandling of evidence, and the applicant’s clean record, concluded that prima facie the applicant was entitled to bail. Consequently, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. The order emphasized that the bail does not affect the trial on merits.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a case involving offences under Sections 70(2), 127(2), 137(2), 351(2) of the IPC and Sections 5G/6 of the POCSO Act.
Whether the delay in filing the FIR and alleged irregularities in evidence collection justify the grant of bail.
Whether the applicant’s lack of prior criminal record and willingness to cooperate affect the bail decision.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 127(2), 137(2), 183, 351(2), 70(2)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5G, 6

Subjects

bail
delay in FIR
evidence tampering
IPC
POCSO Act
sexual assault
procedural irregularities

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45249 of 2025

Rohit @ Manish @ Mohit
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Devendra Kumar Mishra, Manoj
Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dhirendra Kumar Verma, G.A., Sharad
Chandra Srivastava

Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.114 out of 269)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been
served on 18.12.2025, but none is present on behalf of the informant.

2. Heard Sri Devendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material
placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.335 of 2025, under Sections 70(2),
127(2), 137(2), 351(2) BNS and Section 5G/6 POCSO Act, Police Station
Sasnigate, District Aligarh, 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. It is
true that the FSL report indicates the presence of blood and spermatozoa, but
there is a major discrepancy in the collection of the said clothes. The medical
examination report indicates that the victim did not have any spare clothes;
as such her clothes could not be sealed there and then. The said clothes were
sealed at the police station, and there is every likelihood of interpolation in
the said clothes. Even the presence of blood or spermatozoa does not
indicate the involvement of the applicant.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the FIR itself is
BAIL No. 45249 of 2025
2

delayed by about 2 days, and the victim was recovered, and even after the
recovery of the victim, the FIR was instituted after a delay of about 12 hours,
and there is no explanation for the said delay. Even the fact that the victim
was under intoxication does not find mention in her statement recorded
under Section 183 BNSS. The complete story seems unbelievable. The
applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 11.08.2025. He
undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could
not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.

7. 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 the institution of the FIR and the discrepancy in
collecting the clothes of the victim, 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.

8. Let the applicant- Rohit @ Manish @ Mohit, 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.

9. 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
(Ravi Kant)

Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…