Allahabad High Court
KARTIKEY RAOversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that a prima facie case for bail exists and granted bail to the applicant.
Summary
Kartikey Rao applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No.12 of 2026) involving charges under Sections 137(2), 65(1)M, 87 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4(2) of the POCSO Act, 2012. The FIR was lodged about one and a half months after the alleged incident. The victim, who had stayed voluntarily at the applicant’s house, gave a statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. indicating that she was a consenting party and that her parents had falsely implicated the applicant. The court, after considering the delay in filing the FIR, the victim’s statement, and the submissions of counsel, found that a prima facie case for bail existed. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. The order does not affect the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail during the pendency of trial despite charges under the POCSO Act.
- Whether the delay of one and a half months in lodging the FIR warrants bail.
- Whether the victim’s statement of consent and allegation of false implication by her parents influences the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 65(1)M, 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4(2)
Subjects
- bail
- PCSO Act
- consent
- delay in FIR
- prima facie
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15279 of 2026
Kartikey Rao
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.29 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 27.04.2026.
2. Heard Sri Arvind Singh, 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.12 of 2026, under Sections 137(2),
65(1)M, 87 BNS and Section 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station
Babhni, District Sonbhadra, during the pendency of trial.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay of about one and a half months in the institution of
the FIR and that the victim appears to be a consenting party as per her
statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., as she had stayed in the
house of the applicant of her own sweet will and has stated that her parents
falsely implicated the applicant, 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. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
5. Let the applicant- Kartikey Rao, 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
BAIL No. 15279 of 2026
2
tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the
trial court as required.
6. 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…