Allahabad High Court

1. Sri B.P. Singh, learned AGA apprised the Court that notice has been served upon the informant on 12.08.2025. Despite service of notice, none present on behalf of informant.

2. Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 64 of 2023 (S.T. No. 912 of 2023), under Sections 452, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Ayana, District Auraiya during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant. The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed vide order dated 25.09.2023 but he is pressing he instant second bail application on the ground that applicant is in jail since 16.05.2023 i.e. for last more than two years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded.

5. He further submits, in the charge-sheet there are total eight witnesses but till date only four witnesses could be examined, therefore, there is no hope of early disposal of the trial. He further submits, even from the order-sheet of the case, which has been annexed along with instant bail application, it could not be reflected that applicant is causing delay in trial.

6. He further submits, record further suggests that victim of the case has already been examined by the trial court, therefore, if applicant is released 2 BAIL No. 27951 of 2025 on bail then also there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence.

7. He further submits, however, as per victim and informant, she was about 13 years of age but as per CMO report the age of the victim was 17 years, therefore, she was at the verge of her consent and considering the facts of the case, it could not be ruled out that she was not the consenting party.

8. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and after considering the entire facts in detail the first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed but could not dispute the fact that in the present matter applicant is in jail for last more than two years and till date out of eight witnesses of charge-sheet only four witnesses could be examined.

10. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that there is no evidence which can suggests that applicant is causing delay in trial. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that victim of the case has already been examined.

11. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that however as per victim and informant she was about 13 years of age at the time of incident but as per CMO her radiological age was about 17 years. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

13. However, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed vide order dated 25.09.2023 after considering the fact that there is allegation of rape against applicant but applicant is in jail since May, 2023 i.e. for last more than two years and it appears, till date out of eight witnesses of the charge-sheet only four witness could be examined, therefore, there is no hope of early disposal of the trial.

14. Further, from the record, it could not be reflected that applicant is causing delay in trial. The law is settled that right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and on its violation even in serious cases an 3 BAIL No. 27951 of 2025 accused can be released on bail. Considering the long incarceration of the applicant coupled with the fact that there is no allegation that he is causing delay in trial it cannot be said that his fundamental right of speedy trial has not been violated.

15. Further, from the record, it also reflects, victim has already been examined by the trial court as PW-1, therefore, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that if applicant is released on bail then also there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence.

16. Further, however, as per victim and informant she was about 13 years of age but as per the CMO concerned her radiological age was about 17 years.

17. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history.

18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

20. Let the applicant - Anshu Alias Anshu Diwakar be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

21. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

22. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts 4 BAIL No. 27951 of 2025 brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 8, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.)

1. Sri B.P. Singh, learned AGA apprised the Court that notice has been served upon the informant on 12.08.2025. Despite service of notice, none present on behalf of informant.

2. Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 64 of 2023 (S.T. No. 912 of 2023), under Sections 452, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Ayana, District Auraiya during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant. The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed vide order dated 25.09.2023 but he is pressing he instant second bail application on the ground that applicant is in jail since 16.05.2023 i.e. for last more than two years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded.

5. He further submits, in the charge-sheet there are total eight witnesses but till date only four witnesses could be examined, therefore, there is no hope of early disposal of the trial. He further submits, even from the order-sheet of the case, which has been annexed along with instant bail application, it could not be reflected that applicant is causing delay in trial.

6. He further submits, record further suggests that victim of the case has already been examined by the trial court, therefore, if applicant is released 2 BAIL No. 27951 of 2025 on bail then also there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence.

7. He further submits, however, as per victim and informant, she was about 13 years of age but as per CMO report the age of the victim was 17 years, therefore, she was at the verge of her consent and considering the facts of the case, it could not be ruled out that she was not the consenting party.

8. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and after considering the entire facts in detail the first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed but could not dispute the fact that in the present matter applicant is in jail for last more than two years and till date out of eight witnesses of charge-sheet only four witnesses could be examined.

10. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that there is no evidence which can suggests that applicant is causing delay in trial. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that victim of the case has already been examined.

11. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that however as per victim and informant she was about 13 years of age at the time of incident but as per CMO her radiological age was about 17 years. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

13. However, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed vide order dated 25.09.2023 after considering the fact that there is allegation of rape against applicant but applicant is in jail since May, 2023 i.e. for last more than two years and it appears, till date out of eight witnesses of the charge-sheet only four witness could be examined, therefore, there is no hope of early disposal of the trial.

14. Further, from the record, it could not be reflected that applicant is causing delay in trial. The law is settled that right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and on its violation even in serious cases an 3 BAIL No. 27951 of 2025 accused can be released on bail. Considering the long incarceration of the applicant coupled with the fact that there is no allegation that he is causing delay in trial it cannot be said that his fundamental right of speedy trial has not been violated.

15. Further, from the record, it also reflects, victim has already been examined by the trial court as PW-1, therefore, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that if applicant is released on bail then also there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence.

16. Further, however, as per victim and informant she was about 13 years of age but as per the CMO concerned her radiological age was about 17 years.

17. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history.

18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

20. Let the applicant - Anshu Alias Anshu Diwakar be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

21. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

22. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts 4 BAIL No. 27951 of 2025 brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 8, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.)