Allahabad High Court
PAPPUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail and allowed the bail application.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Pappu in Criminal Case No. 767 of 2021, which alleged offences under IPC sections 363, 366, 376DA, 376(2)(N), 323, 506 and POCSO Act sections 3/4(2), 5(L)/6. The victim, a minor of about 13 years, gave an initial statement under Section 161 CrPC that did not name the applicant, but later, under Section 164 CrPC, alleged a gang‑rape involving the applicant and co‑accused. The applicant’s counsel argued that the later statement was unreliable and that the applicant had no prior criminal record and had been in custody for only a month and a half. The court examined the contradictions in the victim’s statements, noted the applicant’s clean record, and reiterated the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Concluding that the later statement was not reliable and that bail criteria were satisfied, the court granted bail with standard conditions. The order expressly limited its observations to the bail application and did not prejudice the trial’s merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the contradictions between the victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC render the later statement unreliable for bail considerations
- Whether the seriousness of the offences under IPC and POCSO Act precludes the grant of bail
- Whether the applicant’s lack of prior criminal record and short period of custody justify bail
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161, 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 363, 366, 376, 506
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4, 5, 6
Subjects
- bail
- presumption of innocence
- contradictory statements
- minor victim
- sexual offences
- IPC
- POCSO
- CrPC
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13762 of 2026
Pappu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjay Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Priyanka Srivastava
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. The instant matter has been nominated to this Bench by the Hon'ble
The Chief Justice.
2. Sri Vijay Bahadur Maurya, learned AGA apprised the Court that notice
has been served upon the informant. As despite service of notice none
appeared on behalf of the informant and, therefore, with the assistance of
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court Legal Services and
learned AGA the instant bail application is being heard and disposed of.
3. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms.
Priyanka Srivastava, learned counsel for the High Court Legal Services
and Sri Vijay Bahadur Maurya, learned AGA for the State.
4. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.767 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366,
376DA, 376(2)(N), 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4(2), 5(L)/6 POCSO Act,
Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilly, during pendency of the trial.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant is innocent and on
the basis of false allegation he has been made accused in the present
matter.
6. He further argued, however, victim in her statement recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. made allegation of gang rape and according to her,
applicant, co-accused Mitrapal and Sonu after abducting her committed
BAIL No. 13762 of 2026
2
rape upon her but earlier when statement of the victim was recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. then she categorically stated that she had gone along
with the co-accused Sonu and she did not even disclose the name of
applicant and, therefore, her statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. is in contradiction with her earlier statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. and it reflects, victim on the instigation of informant
before the Magistrate, subsequently, started making allegations of gang
rape and no reliance can be placed on her subsequent statement.
7. He next submits, applicant is not having any previous criminal history
and in the present matter he is in jail since 01.04.2026 i.e. for last one and
half months.
8. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel appearing on behalf of
High Court Legal Services opposed the prayer for bail but could not
dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the
applicant.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the case.
10. However, as per school record, victim was aged about 13 years and
she in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. made allegation
of gang rape against applicant, co-accused Mitrapal and Sonu but earlier
when her statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. then she did
not even disclose the name of the applicant and categorically stated that
she knew co-accused Sonu and she herself had gone along with him and,
therefore, there are material contradictions in both the statements of the
victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and considering this
fact this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel
for the applicant that prima facie her subsequent statement recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not appear to be reliable.
11. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in
the present matter he is in jail since 01.04.2026 i.e. for last one and half
month.
12. Further, the law is settled unless proven guilty an accused is deemed
BAIL No. 13762 of 2026
3
to be innocent and his bail application should not be rejected either for
preventive or punitive purpose.
13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant bail application is allowed.
15. Let the applicant - Pappu 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.
16. 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.
17. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
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.
(Sameer Jain,J.)
May 12, 2026
S.A.
Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…