Court Says Prima Facie Case For Bail Made Out; Clarifies Observations Will Not Affect Trial
Allahabad, June 29: The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to an accused in a case registered under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, after noting that the applicant was not named in the first information report and had no criminal history.
Justice Vikas Budhwar allowed the bail application filed by Gaurav in connection with Case Crime No. 108 of 2025, Police Station Kotwali Mursan, District Hathras.
The Court observed that, considering the overall facts, the applicant’s non-mention in the FIR, absence of criminal history and his custody since 30.05.2025, he was prima facie entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Background
The bail application was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The case arose from an FIR lodged on 17.05.2025 by the informant alleging commission of sexual offence against the victim. The FIR was lodged against three named accused persons.
According to the applicant, his name was not mentioned in the FIR and he was subsequently implicated during statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC/Section 180 BNSS and Section 164 CrPC/Section 183 BNSS.
Applicant’s Submissions
The applicant’s counsel argued that the FIR did not contain any allegation of commission of the offence by the applicant.
It was submitted that the applicant was known to the victim and, therefore, if there had been any allegation against him from the beginning, his name would have been mentioned in the FIR itself.
The defence further argued that the applicant was falsely implicated due to a separate family-related dispute and that the subsequent implication was not supported by the initial version.
The applicant also relied upon the medical age assessment document, contending that the victim’s age was assessed as 18-19 years at the time of medical examination conducted on 22.05.2025.
It was further submitted that the applicant had been in jail since 30.05.2025 and had no criminal antecedents.
State Opposed Bail
The learned AGA opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations were grave.
However, the State could not dispute that the applicant had no criminal history and that his name was not mentioned in the FIR.
The State also could not dispute that, as per the FIR version, there was no direct allegation against the applicant regarding commission of the principal offence.
Court’s Findings
After hearing both sides, the High Court noted that the applicant was not named in the first information report.
The Court further observed that the FIR had been lodged on the basis of allegations communicated to the informant, but there was no recital in the later statements explaining why the applicant’s name was not mentioned in the FIR despite his subsequent naming.
The Court also took into account the fact that the applicant had no criminal history and had remained in custody since 30.05.2025.
Considering these facts, the Court held that the applicant was prima facie entitled to bail.
Bail Conditions
The Court directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
The Court imposed several conditions, including that the applicant shall not tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses.
He was also directed not to seek adjournments on dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present before the trial court.
The applicant was directed to remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel, and to remain personally present on dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 CrPC/Section 351 BNSS.
The Court further directed that in case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and proclamation proceedings are initiated, the trial court shall proceed in accordance with law.
The applicant was also directed to appear before the concerned police station on the first Monday of each month.
Trial Court Free To Decide Independently
The High Court clarified that any observations made while granting bail shall not affect the trial court in forming its independent opinion on the basis of evidence and testimony of witnesses.
The Court further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified before acceptance.
The bail application was accordingly allowed.
Key Takeaway
The order shows that even in serious offences, bail may be granted where the Court finds relevant mitigating factors such as non-mention of the applicant in the FIR, absence of criminal history, custody period and lack of clear explanation for later implication.
At the same time, the Court imposed strict conditions to ensure that the accused does not misuse the liberty of bail or interfere with the trial.