Allahabad High Court
DEEPAKversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the bail application is a fit case for bail and granted bail with conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Deepak, who is accused in a rape case involving a minor girl aged about 14 years. The applicant argued that the medico‑legal report did not support the allegation of rape, that the victim's age had not been conclusively established, and that he has no prior criminal record, having been in custody since 12 January 2026. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the victim’s statement that the accused took her to a hotel and committed rape. After reviewing the evidence, the court, without expressing an opinion on the merits, found the case suitable for bail and ordered the applicant’s release on personal bond with two sureties, subject to several conditions. The order expressly limited its scope to the bail application and did not prejudice the trial court’s future determination of guilt.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused in a rape case involving a minor under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the POCSO Act despite the seriousness of the allegations.
- Whether the absence of conclusive medical evidence of rape and lack of definitive age determination of the victim affect the grant of bail.
- Whether the accused’s lack of prior criminal history and the pendency of trial justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 351(3), 483, 65(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 — s. 3(2), 4(2)
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- minor
- POCSO Act
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- medical evidence
- age determination
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13098 of 2026
Deepak
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prakash Kumar Shrivastava, Vivek
Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mahesh Kumar Kuntal, Mahima
Sahai, Snehlata Singh, Surendra Mohan
Sharma
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Lalit Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Prakash
Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish Kumar Tripathi,
learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.
2. Names of Sri Mahesh Kumar Kuntal, Ms. Mahima Sahai, Ms. Snehlata
Singh and Sri Surendra Mohan Sharma appear in the cause list as counsel
for the first informant but none of them is present today.
3. Same was the state of affairs when the matter was last taken up on
16.9.2026 and the matter was directed to be listed for today
peremptorily.
4. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer
to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 36 of 2026 under Sections 137(2),
65(1), 351(3) BNS and 3/4(2) POCSO Act registered at Police Station
Highway, District Mathura during pendency of the trial.
5. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case and medico-legal report of the
victim does not support the allegation of commission of rape on her though
the same has been conducted three days after the incident. It is further
submitted that victim is aged about 14 years and 5 months as per school
BAIL No. 13098 of 2026
2
records of class VIIth, however, there is no certificate of High School or
school first attended and no radiological examination has been conducted for
determination of her age. It is further submitted that applicant, who has no
criminal history, has been languishing in jail since 12.1.2026 and he
undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been
pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is
no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail to
the applicant and submits that victim is a minor girl aged about 14 years and
5 months as per school records of class VIIth and she has categorically
stated that the applicant took her to a hotel and committed rape on her.
7. As per the FIR, applicant is said to have committed rape on the victim
aged about 13 years. The victim has stated in her statements recorded under
sections 180 and 183 BNSS that applicant took her to a hotel where he
committed rape on her, however, medico-legal report of the victim does not
support the allegation of commission of rape on her though the same has
been conducted three days after the incident. No injury has been found on
her private part and her urine pregnancy test has been found to be negative
and the doctor has opined no suggestive signs of recent intercourse. The
victim is aged about 14 years and 5 months as per school records of class
VIIth, however, there is no certificate of High School or school first attended
and no radiological examination has been conducted for determination of her
age. Applicant, who has no criminal history, has been languishing in jail
since 12.1.2026
8. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected
from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find
it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED.
9. Let the applicant Deepak involved in the aforesaid case crime be released
on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following
conditions :-
(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat,
or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
BAIL No. 13098 of 2026
3
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer
or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)
recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek
any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are
present in the trial court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
11. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of
determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free
to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led
unaffected by anything said in this order.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
September 23, 2026
Madhurima
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…