Allahabad High Court
MANISH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that, prima facie, the applicant was entitled to bail and ordered his release on bail.
Summary
Manish Kumar was charged with raping a 17‑year‑old girl on 15 March 2026 and allegedly supplying poisonous tablets, offences punishable under Sections 65(1) and 351(3) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4(2) of the POCSO Act. The FIR was lodged more than two days after the alleged incident and no medical evidence corroborated the allegation; the parties involved had a history of animosity. The applicant, who had no prior criminal record and had been in custody since 25 March 2026, pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. The State opposed bail, while the applicant’s counsel highlighted the FIR delay, lack of forensic proof, and the applicant’s clean record. After weighing these factors, the court held that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail, ordered his release on personal bond and sureties, and imposed conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or witness intimidation.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged rape of a minor under the IPC and POCSO Act despite the seriousness of the charges.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and absence of medical evidence create sufficient doubt to merit bail.
- Whether the applicant’s personal circumstances and lack of prior record outweigh the risk of tampering or intimidation.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 351(3), 65(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4(2)
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- POCSO Act
- IPC
- delay in FIR
- lack of medical evidence
- false implication
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15248 of 2026
Manish Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar, Ashish Goyal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.22 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Learned State Law Officer has informed that the
notice to the informant has been served on 23.04.2026, but none is present
on behalf of the informant.
2. Heard Sri Ashish Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jai Kishan
Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material
placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.86 of 2026, under Sections 65(1),
351(3) BNS and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Fatehpur Sikri,
District Agra, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have raped the victim
on 15.03.2026 at about 1:00 p.m. by taking her to the house of one Vishnu,
pressurizing her to continue the said relationship, and even giving her certain
poisonous tablets to administer to her family members, which were thrown
away by her.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
FIR is delayed by more than 2 days, and there is no explanation for the said
delay. It is a clear-cut case of false implication, as the applicant and the
family members of the victim carry animosity with each other. There is no
medical corroboration of the incident either. The victim, by her physical
BAIL No. 15248 of 2026
2
appearance, seems to be major, although her age is 17 years as per
ossification test report, and a leverage of 2 years may be granted to the
applicant on the upper side. The applicant has no criminal history and is in
jail since 25.03.2026. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not
misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application
but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
7. 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 and there being no
medial corroboration of the incident, 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.
8. Let the applicant- Manish 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.
9. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…