Allahabad High Court
SHIVAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that bail cannot be granted in a gang‑rape case involving a minor under the POCSO Act, finding the application devoid of merit.
Summary
The applicant sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 90 of 2026) involving alleged gang-rape of a minor under Sections 70(2), 351(3) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant argued that the FIR was delayed, there was no medical evidence, and the charges were politically motivated, asserting no prior criminal record. The State contended that the victim, a 15‑year‑old, was raped, making it a serious offence warranting denial of bail. The court examined the seriousness of the offence, the victim’s minority, and the lack of corroborative evidence, and concluded that the bail application lacked merit. Consequently, the bail plea was rejected, and the court directed an expeditious trial without unnecessary adjournments.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a gang‑rape case involving a minor under the POCSO Act
- Whether the three‑day delay in filing the FIR and absence of medical evidence justify bail
- Whether political rivalry and the applicant’s clean record are sufficient grounds for bail
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- gang rape
- minor
- criminal procedure
- FIR delay
- political influence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15302 of 2026
Shivam
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jagadish Prasad Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.39 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for
the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Jagadish Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for applicant, Sri
Shailendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Rajendra
Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the
material placed on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime
No.90 of 2026, under Sections 70(2), 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 POCSO
Act, Police Station Phoolpur, District Azamgarh with the prayer to enlarge
him on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by
about three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The
victim has not raised any alarm during the said act. The story as narrated by
her cannot be believed as the applicant and two other persons are stated to
have abducted her and taken her to a secluded place and raped her, but there
is no medical corroboration of the incident.
5. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant
has been implicated in the case due to local political rivalry ensuing due to
coming Gram Pradhan elections. There is no criminal history of the
applicant. The applicant is in jail since 12.3.2026 and he is ready to
BAIL No. 15302 of 2026
2
cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law
Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that as
per the school certificate the victim was about 15 years old only and she has
been ravished by the applicant and co-accused persons. The victim
contemplated the action against the applicant as the fear of facing social
stigma of rape was in her mind. It is a serious case of gang-rape, as such, the
applicant is not entitled to bail.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the fact that it is a case of gang-rape and the victim is minor, I do not find it
a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found
devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously, as early as possible, in accordance with law,
without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party, if there is no legal
impediment.
9. 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.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…