Allahabad High Court
RAHUL KUMAR BHARTIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
On a prima facie basis, the court held that the applicant is entitled to bail despite the serious charges, as the victim's statement indicated consent and there was no compelling evidence to deny bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Rahul Kumar Bharti, who was arrested in connection with a case (Crime No. 225 of 2024) alleging theft, rape and offences under the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated and asserted that the alleged victim, a girl born on 03.03.2008, had voluntarily stayed with him and expressed consent to the relationship. The prosecution opposed bail but did not dispute the applicant's submissions, while the victim's statement under Section 183 BNSS indicated consent. The court examined the prima facie evidence, the victim's consent claim, and the applicant's lack of prior criminal record. Concluding that the applicant had made out a case for bail, the court ordered his release on personal bond and sureties with standard conditions. The bail order was made subject to verification of sureties and compliance with conditions, without prejudice to the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving alleged rape and offences under the POCSO Act, considering the victim's alleged consent and the prima facie evidence.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 363, 376, 376(2)N
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5, 6
Subjects
- bail
- IPC
- POCSO Act
- consent
- minor
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23158 of 2025
Rahul Kumar Bharti
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sandeep Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.102 out of 243)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on
record. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has
been served on 26.06.2025, but none is present on behalf of the informant.
2. Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material
placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.225 of 2024, under Sections 363,
376, (2)N IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Gulhariha, District
Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
victim is a consenting party, as she had gone to the house of the applicant,
stayed with him, and expressed her willingness to stay with the applicant
only, as she loved him. As per the mark sheet of Class-VIII, the date of birth
of the victim was 03.03.2008; as such, she was marginally more than 16
years old, but by her physical appearance, she appears to be major. There is
no valid document to suggest that she was minor. The applicant has no
criminal history and is in jail since 24.03.2024. He undertakes to cooperate
with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could
BAIL No. 23158 of 2025
2
not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS,
which indicates her consent, 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. The bail application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Rahul Kumar Bharti, 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 tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear
before the trial court as required.
8. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 12, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…