Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Ambikesh Kumar Sharma, counsel for the informant as well as Sri S.S. Pandey, learned AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record.

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 69 of 2026, under Sections 62, 74, 108, 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station- Moondapandey, District- Moradabad, during the pendency of the trial.

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 7.3.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 8.3.2026 under Sections 74, 108, 351(2) B.N.S. The delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. During the course of investigation, sections 62 B.N.S. and 7/8 POCSO Act were added. It is contended that the allegations essentially pertain to an attempt to commit suicide and, therefore, no offence under Section 108 B.N.S. is made out. It is next contended that the applicant had not acted indecently with the victim. There are contradictions in the first information report and the statement of the victim under Section 183 B.N.S.S. with regard to the place of incident. As per the first information report, when the victim had gone to the house of her neighbour Tarawati, the applicant acted indecently with her, whereas, as per the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., while she was on her way, the applicant came from behind, caught hold of her and acted indecently with her. The said contradictions discredit the prosecution case. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 13.3.2026 having no criminal

BAIL No. 15415 of 2026

2

antecedents and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

Learned AGA and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

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. The essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S.S. are not made out. Further, there are contradictions in the first information report and the statement of the victim under Section 183 B.N.S.S. with regard to the place of incident. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than two months and after submission of the charge sheet 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 merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Let the applicant Sunil Kumar , involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on 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;

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.