Allahabad High Court
PRADYUMAN DHANAKversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail pending trial.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Pradyuman Dhanak, who was arrested in connection with Crime No. 499 of 2025 alleging gang rape of a minor under Sections 332(b), 70(2), 351(3) of the BNS Act and Sections 5(g) and 6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, that the FIR was lodged in Madhya Pradesh after a delay and later transferred, that the victim's age was uncertain, and that the medico‑legal report did not support a rape allegation, emphasizing his lack of prior criminal record and prolonged pre‑trial detention since 20‑Jan‑2026. The State opposed bail, relying on the victim’s statement that the accused committed gang rape. The Court, referring to Supreme Court precedents in Kapil Wadhawan v CBI (2025) and Maya Tiwari v State of U.P. (2024) and the policy directive on bail (2023), held that the applicant was entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the charge, without expressing a view on the merits. Bail was granted subject to a personal bond, sureties, and strict conditions, and procedural directions were issued for verification and release.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a pending trial for alleged gang rape of a minor under the POCSO Act and BNS provisions.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR, its inter‑state transfer, and questions about the victim’s age affect the bail decision.
- Whether the applicant’s lack of criminal history and prolonged pre‑trial detention justify bail despite the gravity of the alleged offence.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- minor victim
- gang rape
- FIR transfer
- overcrowded prisons
- Supreme Court guidelines
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17903 of 2026
Pradyuman Dhanak
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, Anurag
Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri C.S. Saran, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 499 of 2025, under Sections 332(b),
70(2), 351(3) of BNS and Section 5(g)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station
Tronika City, District Ghaziabad during the pendency of the trial.
3. At the very outset, learned AGA submits that notice has been served on
the first informant.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and initially zero
FIR has been lodged in the State of Madhya Pradesh after a delay of more
than one month and the said FIR has been transferred to District
Ghaziabad. It is further submitted that the age of the victim has been
found to be 14 years as per school record of Class 7th, however, the
victim took admission in Class 6th and it is submitted that the said
document is not a document of school first attended no radio-logical
examination of the victim has been conducted for her age determination.
It is further submitted that the medico-legal report of the victim does not
support the commission of rape on her. It is also submitted that the
applicant has been languishing in jail since 20.1.2026 and he is having no
BAIL No. 17903 of 2026
2
criminal history. It is lastly submitted that in case the applicant is granted
bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial
proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail,
however, it is submitted that the the victim is a minor girl aged about 14
years as per school record of Class 7th and the victim in her statement
recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS has stated the applicant and
co-accused committed gang rape on her.
6. Initially zero FIR has been lodged in the State of Madhya Pradesh after
a delay of more than one month and the said FIR has been transfer to
District Ghaziabad and as per the allegation in the FIR, the applicant and
co-accused are said to have committed gang rape on the victim aged about
14 years, however, the age of the victim has been found to be 14 years as
per school record of Class 7th, however, the victim took admission in
Class 6th and it is submitted that the said document is not a document of
school first attended no radio-logical examination of the victim has been
conducted for her age determination. The medico-legal report of the
victim does not support the commission of rape on her. The applicant has
been languishing in jail since 20.1.2026 and he is having no criminal
history.
7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of
offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into account
overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial
courts as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex
Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court
in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC
Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is
entitled to be enlarged on bail.
8. Accordingly, the present application is ALLOWED.
9. Let the applicant- Pradyuman Dhanak involved in the aforementioned
BAIL No. 17903 of 2026
3
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,
with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely
without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or
commission of any crime after being released on bail.
(iv) The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the
bond executed by him.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground
for cancellation of bail.
11. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant as well
as sureties should be verified by the court concerned.
12. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to
the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to
ensure early release of the applicant.
13. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
concerned Jail Superintendent via e-mail or e-prison portal within 24
hours in compliance of the order of the Apex Court in the case of Policy
Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4
of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
September 30, 2026
Abhishek
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…