HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27455 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Gaurav Kumar Shukla, counsel for the informant. Perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 71 of 2026, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) B.N.S., and 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Sonha, District- Basti during pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 7.4.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 10.4.2026. The delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the report of Chief Medical Officer, Basti dated 1.6.2026 the victim was found aged between 18 to 19 years. Further, the victim in her statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. stated that she left her house voluntarily and had gone to Mumbai. At Mumbai, she met the applicant, stayed with him and established relations with him. However, the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. narrated an entirely different version. As per the said statement, there is no allegation against the applicant. It is contended that the material inconsistency between the statements of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. discredits the prosecution case. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajneesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Gaurav Kumar Shukla Shani Sharma .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) is in jail since 25.5.2026 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 and counsel for the informant have 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 has been lodged belatedly. As per the report of Chief Medical Officer, Basti dated 1.6.2026 the victim was found aged between 18 to 19 years. There is material inconsistency between the statements 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 antecedent. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than three 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, Shani Sharma 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. September 16, 2026 S.S. BAIL No. 27455 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad