Pooja vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 876 ALL

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 876 ALL
Judgement Date : 16 April, 2026

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Pooja vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 16 April, 2026

Author: Vivek Varma

Bench: Vivek Varma





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:83327
 
 
 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11844 of 2026     
 
   Pooja    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 3 Others    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)         
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Mahesh Kumar Dubey   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 64
 
     
 
 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Shri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that the informant has refused to accept the notice. Copy of reports of the Inspector and Head Constable of P.S. Sant Nagar, Mirzapur, produced by learned A.G.A. are taken on record.

2. Heard counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the material available on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in S.T. No.108 of 2025, Case Crime No. 69 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 323, 506, 120-B I.P.C. and Sections 16/17 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Santnagar, District- Mirzapur, 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 03.03.2023. The victim was recovered on 02.05.2023. The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of the first information report was filed on 06.06.2023. The First information report was lodged on 01.08.2023. The delay in filing the application for registration of the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant on 11.03.2026. As per the first information report, the only allegation levelled against the applicant is that she impersonated herself as a constable of the STF and allegedly participated in the kidnapping of the victim. However, during the course of investigation, the victim in her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. has materially improved her version, introducing new facts which were conspicuously absent in the first information report. Such inconsistencies discredit the prosecution case. It is next contended that main co-accused Bhonu @ Deendayal has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 12.04.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5210 of 2024. The applicant claims parity. Further, the victim was present at public places, but she never raised any alarm nor resisted the applicant. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 11.02.2026 having no criminal antecedents and in case she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty.

5. Learned A.G.A. for the State 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 there is inordinate delay in moving the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of the first information report. There are inconsistencies in the first information report and the statements of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. Further, the victim was present at public places, but she never raised any alarm nor resisted the applicant. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Co-accused Bhonu @ Deendayal has been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant is a lady and has no criminal antecedents. She has remained confined for more than two 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 Pooja, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that she: