Allahabad High Court

JAI KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The court held that prima facie the applicant is entitled to bail and allowed the bail application.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Jai Kumar, who was charged with gang‑rape, video‑recording of the act, and offences under the IPC, POCSO Act and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused and a co‑accused raped the victim, recorded the act and blackmailed her, but the FIR was lodged two months after the alleged incident and no medical report or video evidence was produced. The applicant pleaded innocence, highlighted the delay in filing the FIR and the absence of corroborative evidence, and asserted no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. After weighing the delay, lack of evidence, and the applicant’s cooperation, the court concluded that prima facie the applicant was entitled to bail and ordered his release on bond with conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a case involving serious offences such as gang‑rape and related charges under the IPC, POCSO Act and SC/ST Act.
Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the absence of medical or video evidence affect the grant of bail.
Whether the applicant’s claim of innocence, lack of criminal history, and willingness to cooperate justify bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 173(4), 183
Indian Penal Code — s. 351(3), 352, 65(1), 70(2), 76
POCSO Act — s. 5L, 6
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va)

Subjects

bail
gang rape
sexual assault
POCSO Act
SC/ST Act
delay in FIR
lack of medical evidence
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11703 of 2026

Jai Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankit Pandey, Deepak Gaur
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Atul Sharma, G.A.

And

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8614 of 2026

Jai Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Deepak Gaur, Ramesh Chandra
Kushwaha, Sanjeev Kumar, Syed
Mohammad Abbas Abdy
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.42 out of 205)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Deepak Gaur, Sri Ramesh Chandra Kushwaha, learned
counsels for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0132 of 2025, under Sections
70(2), 65(1), 76, 352, 351(3) BNS, 2023, Sections 5L/6 POCSO Act and
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, 1989, Police
Station Basrehar, District Etawah, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and co-accused Rahul Kumar are
BAIL No. 11703 of 2026
2

stated to have gang-raped the victim, video-recorded the said act, and kept
on blackmailing her to establish corporeal relationship with her up to
04.11.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
FIR was delayed by about 2 months, and there is no explanation for the said
delay. Even the application to the SSP, in compliance with the provisions of
Section 173(4) BNSS, was given after a delay of about 20 days, i.e., on
24.11.2025. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no
recovery of any video whatsoever.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the victim's
statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS indicates that the applicant
outraged her modesty by forcing her into the mustard field and claiming that
2 years back, the applicant had raped her and co-accused Rahul Kumar had
video-recorded the said act. The said allegations have been made as an
afterthought. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since
03.02.2026. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the
liberty of bail.

7. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application
but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay in the institution of the FIR, the absence of any
medical corroboration of the incident and that there is no recovery of any
indecent video of the victim, and without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has
made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant- Jai Kumar, be released on bail on furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned,
subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not
tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the
trial court as required.
BAIL No. 11703 of 2026
3

10. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 5, 2026
(Ravi Kant)

Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…