HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4212 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder for the State submits that the notice of the present application has been served upon the informant/opposite party no.2 on 10.02.2026 and C.W.C./opposite party no.3 on 13.02.2026. The receiving endorsements produced by learned A.G.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. 2. Heard counsel for the applicant and learned Brief Holder for the State and Ms. Pooja Tripathi, counsel for High Court Legal Services Committee/opposite party no.4. 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. 409 of 2025, under Sections 64(1), 69 B.N.S. and Section 3/4(1) of POCSO Act, Police Station- Phaphund, District- Auraiya, 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 18.10.2025. The First information report was lodged on 26.10.2025. 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 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 and the applicant were in consensual relationship for considerable period of time. The consensual sexual Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Pati Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sawan .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) relationship, which if continued between the parties for considerable period of time, could not be said to have continued under the 'misconception of fact' under Section 28 B.N.S. and could not be said to be 'sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means' under Section 69 B.N.S. No offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant never promised to marry the victim. In support of his submission, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prashant vs. State of NCT of Delhi, S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2793 of 2024 decided on 20.11.2024. 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 statements of the victim under Section 180 B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S., the victim and the applicant were in consensual relationship for considerable period of time. The consensual sexual relationship, which if continued between the parties for considerable period of time, could not be said to have continued under the 'misconception of fact' under Section 28 B.N.S. and could not be said to be 'sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means' under Section 69 B.N.S. 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 Sawan, 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, BAIL No. 4212 of 2026 2 (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. 4212 of 2026 3 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad