Allahabad High Court

AMAR GUPTA @ RAGHUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

Amar Gupta was arrested for allegedly enticing away a 15‑year‑old girl and raping her, with charges under the IPC, POCSO Act and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution argued that the victim’s minority rendered any alleged consent ineffective and that the accused threatened her family. The defence contended that the FIR was delayed, the victim had voluntarily travelled with the accused, and the taxi driver’s statement corroborated the absence of abduction. The court examined the delay in filing the FIR, the victim’s statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S., and the driver’s testimony, and found that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to personal bond and sureties, with standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused despite the alleged rape of a minor under the POCSO Act and SC/ST Act.
Whether the victim’s alleged consent is legally valid given her minority.
Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the statements of the victim and taxi driver affect the bail decision.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 183
Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 137(2), 351(2), 65(1), 78(2), 87
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 3/4(2)
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)द, 3(1)ध, 3(2)(V)

Subjects

bail
minor
consent
POCSO
SC/ST Act
delay in FIR
rape
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13927 of 2026

Amar Gupta @ Raghu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Dutt Awasthi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Chandra Pal, G.A., Pande Priti
Premshankar, Rajesh Kumar, Udayveer
Singh

Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 76 out of 259)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Krishna Dutt Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
K.K. Singh, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned
counsel for the informant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law
Officer and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 09 of 2026, under Sections
137(2), 87, 65(1), 115(2), 351(2), 78(2) BNS and 3/4(2) POCSO Act and
3(1)द, 3(1)ध and 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Phafund, District
Auraiya, during the pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the
informant aged about 15 years when she had gone for her coaching on
7.1.2026 at 8.00 am.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. The FIR is delayed by more than one day and there is no
BAIL No. 13927 of 2026
2

explanation of the said delay caused.

6. The victim is a consenting party as is evident from her statement recorded
under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she was forced into the said car. She
did not raise any alarm during the said sojourn in the said car from her native
place, Auraiya to Agra. Her statement that she and the applicant stayed in
the house of his friend, where there were all the family members and
thereafter the applicant is stated to have taken her at a rented room and
committed rape with her also indicates her consent as she did not raise any
alarm during the stay at two places.

7. The statement of one Arjun, who happens to be the driver of the said taxi
which was taken on rent by the applicant and he has categorically stated that
applicant and victim had rented his car and that the victim was not abducted
by the applicant

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no
criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since
31.1.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:

9. The victim was minor. As per school certificate, her date of birth is
10.10.2011, as such, her age comes out to be 14 years, 2 months and 27 days
from the date of occurrence and her consent pales into insignificance owing
to her age. The applicant is a criminal and had threatened the victim to put
her family to death. Seeing the said danger, the victim could not raise any
alarm during the sojourn and stay.

CONCLUSION:

10. 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 FIR; the statement of the taxi driver and the
statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, whereby she seems to be
consenting party and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
The bail application is allowed.
BAIL No. 13927 of 2026
3

11. Let the applicant-Amar Gupta @ Raghu, who is involved in
aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned subject to verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall
not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the
trial court as required.

12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent
opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Shalini

Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…