Golu Balmiki vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3914 of 2026

Golu Balmiki	.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Sudheer Rana
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶3

Court No. - 64

¶4

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶5

As per office report dated 10.03.2026, notice of the present application has been served personally upon the opposite party no.4/informant. However, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.4 nor any counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf.

¶6

Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder for the State. Perused the material available on record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 223 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 61(2), 65(1) of B.N.S., and Section 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station- Lalauli, District- Fatehpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

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 19.10.2024. The First information report was lodged on 21.10.2024. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. It is contended that the victim is major. The age of the victim was incorrectly got registered in the school records by the victim's

¶9

BAIL No. 3914 of 2026

¶10

2

¶11

parents to give her advantage in life. There is no lawful basis for the age related entry of the victim in the school records. The name of the applicant was disclosed by the victim in her statements under Section 180 B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S. Placing reliance on the statements of the victim under Section 180 B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S. it is contended that the victim had gone voluntarily with the applicant to Delhi and stayed there with the applicant for 45 days. The victim was present at public places, but she did not raise any protest or alarm. The conduct of the victim shows that she was a consenting party. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 22.07.2025 having no criminal antecedents and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶13

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 applicant was not named in the first information report. As per the statements of the victim under Section 180 B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S., the victim had gone voluntarily with the applicant to Delhi and stayed there with the applicant for 45 days. The victim was present at public places, but she did not raise any protest or alarm. The conduct of the victim shows that she was a consenting party. Further, 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 seven months and after the 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 the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Let the applicant Golu Balmiki , involved in the aforesaid case

¶15

BAIL No. 3914 of 2026

¶16

3

¶17

be released on bail on his 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:

¶18