Roshan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4128 of 2026

Roshan

.....Applicant(s)

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶6

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

Heard Sri Mani Ram Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party.

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 655 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 65(1), 352 B.N.S. and 5(I)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Maharajganj during the pendency of the trial.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. 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 disclosing her age and the entries made are unbelievable. Placing reliance on the statement of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. it is submitted that the victim had gone with the applicant to Gorakhpur and stayed there with him in a hotel for five days. Thereafter, along with the applicant she went to Delhi. It is further contended that the victim was present at public places. She did not raise any alarm nor did she resist the applicant. Her conduct shows that she was a consenting party. The applicant is in jail since 04.12.2025 having no

BAIL No. 4128 of 2026

2

criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the victim in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. stated that she had gone with the applicant to Gorakhpur and stayed there with him in a hotel for five days. Thereafter, along with the applicant she went to Delhi. The victim was present at public places. She did not raise any alarm nor did she resist the applicant. Her conduct shows that she was a consenting party. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than three months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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, therefore, 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- Roshan, 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 Court concerned subject to the conditions that he: