HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2800 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. As per office report dated 25.2.2026, notice of the present bail application has been personally served 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 his behalf. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 190 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64 B.N.S., and 3/4 POCSO, Police Station- Madihaan, District- Mirzapur during pendency of the trial. 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 27.9.2024. The first information report was lodged on 1.10.2024. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. According to the ossification test report, the victim was found aged 18 years. Further, the victim in her statements under Section 180 B.N.S.S. has stated that she had gone voluntarily with the applicant and stayed with him for two to three days. However, the victim in her statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. has stated a contrary version. It is contended that the inconsistencies in the statements of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. discredit the prosecution case. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Neha Pandey, Piyush Pandey, Pradeep Kumar Srinette Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sanjeet Kol @ Kallu .....Applicant(s) State Of Up And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) applicant is in jail since 4.10.2024 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report was lodged belatedly. There are inconsistencies in the statement of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than one year and five months and 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 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. 6. Let the applicant, Sanjeet Kol @ Kallu involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. 7. 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 S.S. BAIL No. 2800 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad