BAIL/12294/2026 of SAUDAN Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12294 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Learned AGA submits that notice of the present application has been served on the opposite party no.2-informant and opposite party no.4-Child Welfare Committee on 07.04.2026. Receiving endorsements produced by learned AGA, are taken on record. 2. However, no one appears on their behalf nor any counter affidavit has been filed.  3. Heard Sri Alok Singh Chandel, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sri Shushil Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 4. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 40 of 2026, under Sections 140(4), 351(3)  BNS and Section 5M/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Chandausi, District Sambhal during the pendency of trial. 5. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.  The incident is alleged to have occurred on 05.02.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 09.02.2026. Inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. The victim was examined by the doctor on 09.02.2026. As per medical report "no any fresh external injury seen whole over of body" . It is contended that the medical report does  not support the prosecution version. The applicant did not act inappropriately with the victim. At this Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sushil Kumar Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Saudan .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 21 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 11.02.2026 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 6. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 7. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report was lodged belatedly. The medical report does  not support the prosecution version. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than two 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 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. 8. Let the applicant Saudan, 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. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. April 20, 2026 Lbm/- BAIL No. 12294 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad