Allahabad High Court
DHARMENDRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
In the absence of corroborative evidence and with the victim’s conduct indicating consent, the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Dharmendra in a case under Sections 137(2), 64(1), 351(3) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The applicant claimed false implication, arguing that the victim, a minor, had misrepresented her age in school records and had voluntarily accompanied him on public transport, indicating consent. The prosecution could not produce corroborative evidence and the medical report did not support its version. The court found no risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or flight, noting the applicant’s clean record and prolonged pre‑trial detention. Consequently, the court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under the applicable sections of the B.N.S. and POCSO Act given the alleged false implication and lack of corroborative evidence
- Whether the victim’s conduct amounts to consent that negates the alleged offence
- Whether there is a reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 137(2), 351(3), 64(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- victim consent
- POCSO
- criminal procedure
- evidence tampering
- medical evidence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18727 of 2026
Dharmendra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhinav Kumar Mishra, Alok Ranjan
Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dhirendra Kumar Verma, G.A., Vipin
Pandey
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Case called out. Counsels for the informant are not present. Earlier, on
11.8.2026 the case was adjourned on account of absence of counsel for the
informant.
2. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for
the State. Perused the material available on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.28 of 2026, under Sections 137(2),
64(1), 351(3) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, Police Station- Raya, District- Mathura, during the
pendency of trial.
4. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The victim is a major. The age of the victim
was incorrectly got registered in the school records by the victim's parents to
give her advantage in life. There is no lawful basis for the age related entry
of the victim in the school records. Placing reliance upon the statements of
the victim recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S., it is
contended that the victim had accompanied the applicant to Rajasthan by a
public transport. The victim was present at public places, but she did not
raise any protest or alarm. Such conduct of the victim shows that she was a
consenting party. The medical examination report does not support the
prosecution version. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link
the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 28.01.2026
BAIL No. 18727 of 2026
2
having no criminal antecedents and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not
misuse the said liberty.
5. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that as per the statements of the victim recorded
under Section 180 B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S., she had accompanied the
applicant to Rajasthan by a public transport. Such conduct of the victim
shows that she was a consenting party. Medical evidence does not support
the prosecution version. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to
link the applicant with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal
antecedents and has remained confined for more than nine months and after
submission of the 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
the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
7. Let the applicant Dharmendra, involved in the aforesaid case 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; and,
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
September 8, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…