HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23546 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Case called out in the revised list. Counsel for the informant is not present. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P. Tripathi, 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. 189 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) of the B.N.S. and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Rajghat, District- Gorakhpur during pendency of the 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 11.09.2025, whereas the first information report was lodged on 13.09.2025. Delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. The victim is a 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. Further, as per the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S., she left her house voluntarily, had gone to Sangli (Maharashtra), married the applicant, and both are living as husband and wife. There is no allegation of any forceful assault against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 20.03.2026 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jata Shankar Pandey, Vijay Kant Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dhirendra Kumar Verma, G.A., Shailendra Kumar Verma Dheeraj Gaur .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 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 recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S., she left her house voluntarily, had gone to Sangli (Maharashtra), married the applicant, and both are living as husband and wife. There is no allegation of any forceful assault against the applicant. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than five months and after submission of 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 merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. Let the applicant, Dheeraj Gaur 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. 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. September 11, 2026 Abhishek BAIL No. 23546 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma, J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad