Shani Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27455 of 2026

Shani Sharma

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Rajneesh Kumar Mishra : G.A., Gaurav Kumar Shukla

Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Gaurav Kumar Shukla, counsel for the informant. Perused the record.

1. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 71 of 2026, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) B.N.S., and 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Sonha, District- Basti during pendency of the trial.

1. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 7.4.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 10.4.2026. The delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the report of Chief Medical Officer, Basti dated 1.6.2026 the victim was found aged between 18 to 19 years. Further, the victim in her statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. stated that she left her house voluntarily and had gone to Mumbai. At Mumbai, she met the applicant, stayed with him and established relations with him. However, the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. narrated an entirely different version. As per the said statement, there is no allegation against the applicant. It is contended that the material inconsistency between the statements of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. discredits the prosecution case. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant