Raj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2574 of 2026

Raj	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. And 3 Others		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Sushil Kumar Pandey : Baikunth Nath Singh, Kumar Singh	G.A., Santosh

Court No. - 64

¶4

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Santosh Kumar Singh. Perused the record.

The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 105 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1), 305, 61(2) B.N.S., and 5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station- Kuthaund, District- Jalaun during 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 17.6.2025. The first information report was lodged on 19.6.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. The victim is major. As per ossification test report dated 9.7.2025 the victim was found aged 19 years. Further, the victim in her statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S. has not levelled any allegation of sexual assault against the applicant. However, the victim in her statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. has stated that she left her house voluntarily with the applicant and went to Itawah, Gwalior and thereafter to Rajkot and established relations with him. She further stated that she is carrying a pregnancy of four months. The applicant is in jail since 7.7.2025 having no criminal history. In case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse

BAIL No. 2574 of 2026

2

the said liberty.

Learned A.G.A. for the State 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 was lodged belatedly. As per ossification test report dated 9.7.2025 the victim was found aged 19 years. The victim in her statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. has stated that she left her house voluntarily with the applicant and went to Itawah, Gwalior and thereafter to Rajkot and established relations with him. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than eight months and 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.

Let the applicant, Raj 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 witness;

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