Babu Ram Rajbhar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. submits that the notice of the present application has been served upon the informant/opposite party no.2 and C.W.C./opposite party no.3 on 30.01.2026. The receiving endorsements produced by learned AG.A. are taken on record. However, no one appears on behalf of the said opposite parties nor any counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf.

¶11

Heard counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶12

The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 205 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m) B.N.S. and Section 5L/6 of POCSO Act, Police StationChitbadagaon, District- Ballia, during the pendency of trial.

¶13

Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 14.11.2025. The First information report was lodged on 21.11.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. It is next contended that the victim is major. The age of the victim was incorrectly got registered in the school records by the victim's parents to give her advantage in life. There is no lawful basis for the age related entry of the victim in the school records. 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 Bhopal and stayed there with him. There is no allegation of any forceful sexual assault against the applicant. The victim was present at public places, but she did not raise any protest or alarm. The conduct of the

¶14

BAIL No. 4005 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

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 12.12.2025 having no criminal antecedents and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶17

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

¶18

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. As per the statements of the victim under Section 180 B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S. she had gone voluntarily with the applicant to Bhopal and stayed there with him. There is no allegation of any forceful sexual assault against the applicant. 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 three 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.

¶19

Let the applicant Babu Ram Rajbhar , 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 the court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶20

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶21

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

¶22

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶23