Allahabad High Court
HASEENversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The Court held that, on the basis of the belated FIR, lack of a rape allegation, inconsistencies in victim statements and absence of any risk of tampering, the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Haseen, who was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 74, 64(1), 351(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed false implication, pointing out that the FIR was lodged four days after the alleged incident and that the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S. were inconsistent and did not allege rape. The Court noted the belated FIR, lack of a rape allegation, the inconsistencies in the victim’s statements, the applicant’s clean record, and the fact that he had already been detained for over four months. It found no reasonable apprehension that the applicant would tamper with evidence, delay the trial, or intimidate witnesses. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to personal bond, sureties, and conditions of appearance, non‑tampering, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite charges under the B.N.S. and POCSO Act.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and inconsistencies in the victim's statements justify granting bail.
- Whether there is a risk of evidence tampering, trial delay, or witness intimidation that would warrant denial of bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- delay in FIR
- POCSO
- evidentiary inconsistency
- pre‑trial detention
- no prior criminal record
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45503 of 2025
Haseen
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohammad Zakir
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, 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. 2 and the Child Welfare Committee,
Bulandshahr- opposite party no. 3 on 16.12.2025. 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 Neeraj Kumar Sharma,
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. 244 of 2025, under Sections 74, 64(1),
351(2) B.N.S. and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Agauta, District
Bulandshahr during the pendency of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have
occurred on 26.10.2025. The first information report was lodged on
01.11.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. The first information
report was lodged by the victim herself. As per the first information report,
there is no allegation of rape against the applicant. In the statement of the
victim under Section 180 B.N.S.S. also there is no allegation of rape.
However, in her statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S. the victim has
narrated an entirely different version. The inconsistencies in the statements
of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. discredit the prosecution
case. The applicant is in jail since 05.11.2025 having no criminal history and
BAIL No. 45503 of 2025
2
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 the first information report has been
lodged belatedly. As per the first information report, there is no allegation of
rape against the applicant. In the statement of the victim under Section 180
B.N.S.S. also there is no allegation of rape. The inconsistencies in the
statements of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. discredit the
prosecution case. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the
applicant has remained confined for more than four 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- Haseen, 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 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 18, 2026
SKT/- (Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…