MONU @ CHHOTU @ CHHOTELAL v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
BAIL/2762/2026 · 2026-03-18
Vivek Varma
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 110 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 110 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2762 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. As per the office report dated 25.02.2026, notice of the instant application has been served upon the informant/opposite party no.2 personally. However, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2 nor any counter affidavit has been filed on his behalf. 2. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder for the State. Perused the material available on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0320 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)m B.N.S.; Section 5(j)(ii)/6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Bilsi, District- Budaun, during the pendency of trial. 4. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on
30.07.2025. The First information report was lodged on 19.08.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the ossification test report, the was found aged about eighteen years. It is next contended that 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 Etah and Firozabad. She had married the applicant and thereafter gone to Ahmadabad, stayed there. 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. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aushim Luthra, Harishchandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Monu @ Chhotu @ Chhotelal .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s)
offence. The applicant is in jail since 27.10.2025 having no criminal antecedents and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 6. 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 ossification test report, the was found aged about eighteen years. 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 various places and stayed 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. 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 four months and after 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. 7. Let the applicant Monu @ Chhotu @ Chhotelal, 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: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and, (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. March 19, 2026 Manish Kr BAIL No. 2762 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad