Allahabad High Court

RAJDHANI @ DHANIYA SAHANIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 10 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 64 of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, concerning alleged rape. The applicant argued that the FIR and the victim’s statement under Section 180 of the B.N.S. did not allege rape, whereas a later statement under Section 183 did, creating a material inconsistency. The medical report showed no injuries and there was no corroborative evidence linking the applicant to the crime. The court found the prosecution’s case weak, noted the applicant had been in custody for over eight months, and saw no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to personal bond, sureties, and standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the inconsistencies between the FIR and the victim’s statements, coupled with lack of medical and corroborative evidence, justify granting bail.
Whether the State has demonstrated a reasonable apprehension that the accused would tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or cause trial delay if released.
Whether the length of pre‑trial detention (over eight months) warrants bail under Section 64 of the B.N.S. and POCSO Act.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 180, 183, 64
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4

Subjects

bail
pre‑trial detention
inconsistency of statements
medical report
POCSO Act
evidentiary insufficiency
witness tampering
sureties

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16612 of 2026

Rajdhani @ Dhaniya Sahani
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashish Kumar Maurya, G.A., Pankaj
Sahni

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Sahni, learned counsel for
the informant and Sri N. K. Sharma, learned AGA for the State-opposite
party. Perused the material available on record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge
the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 675 of 2025, under Section 64 of
the B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offence
Act, 2012, Police Station- Sahjanwan, District- Gorakhpur, during the
pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The first information report and the
statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. do not
contain any allegation of rape against the applicant. However, the victim
in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. stated that the
applicant committed rape upon her. The material inconsistency between
the first information report and the statement of the victim recorded under
Section 180 B.N.S.S. on one hand and the statement of the victim
recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. on the other, discredit the
prosecution case, at this stage. It is contended that as per the medical
report dated 19.12.2025, no external or internal injury was seen on the
body of the victim. There is no corroborative evidence to connect the
applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 28.12.2025
having no criminal history and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not
misuse the said liberty.
BAIL No. 16612 of 2026
2

4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA has opposed the
prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid
submissions from the record.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this
Court prima facie finds that there is inconsistency between the first
information report and the statements of the victim recorded under
Sections 180 B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S. The medical report does not
support the prosecution case. At this stage there is no corroborative
evidence to connect the applicant with the offence. Further, the applicant
has remained confined for more than eight months and after submission
of charge sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when
no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that
the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence
or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits
of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged
on bail.

6. Let the applicant Rajdhani @ Dhaniya Sahani, involved in the
aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and
two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Vivek Varma, J.)
September 11, 2026
Abhishek

Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…