Allahabad High Court

INDAL KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 17 September 2026
Bench: YOGESH DUBEY JOINT REGISTRAR JUDICIAL

Holding

The applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Indar Kumar, who was arrested in a rape case under Section 65(1) of the BNS and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated due to a property dispute, pointing to the absence of injuries, lack of spermatozoa, and questionable age verification of the 14‑year‑old victim. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and the victim’s minor status. Relying on Supreme Court precedents in Kapil Wadhawan v CBI, Maya Tiwari v State of U.P., and the policy on bail, the Court, without addressing the merits, held that the applicant was entitled to bail. Consequently, the bail was granted subject to a personal bond, sureties and strict conditions, with directions for verification and prompt release.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a POCSO‑related rape case despite the seriousness of the offence
Whether the lack of medical evidence and incomplete age verification affect the bail decision
Whether alleged false implication and a property dispute justify granting bail
Application of Supreme Court guidelines on bail in cases involving minors

Legislation cited

BNS — s. 65(1)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 5, 6

Subjects

bail
rape
POCSO Act
false implication
property dispute
medical evidence
Supreme Court bail guidelines
overcrowded jails

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2457 of 2026

Indal Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rama Shanker Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sandhya Sharma

Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. Heard Sri Rama Shanker Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri B.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Miss Sandhya Sharma,
learned counsel for High Court Legal Services Committee.

2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 302 of 2025, under Sections 65(1) of
BNS and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Didarganj, District
Azamgrh, 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 the FIR has
been lodged after two days and medico-legal examination of the victim
has been conducted after three days of the alleged incident and no injury
has been found on her private part and in pathological report no
spermatozoa has been found in her vaginal smear. It is further submitted
that the age of the victim has been found to be 14 years and 06 months as
per her certificate of Class 8th, however, there is no High School
certificate or the certificate of school first attended and 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 and the FSL report also shows
negative report of pregnancy of the victim though initially she was found
BAIL No. 2457 of 2026
2

pregnant as per urine pregnancy test (UPT). It is also submitted that the
applicant has been languishing in jail since 2.11.2025 and he is having no
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. and the learned counsel for High Court
Legal Services Committee have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail,
however, it is submitted that the the victim is a minor girl aged about 14
years and 06 months as per her certificate of Class 8th and the applicant
is her uncle (Mausa) and there is no reason to falsely implicate the
applicant.

6. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in this case because of some inherited property
dispute of the wife of the applicant and the mother of the victim as both of
them are sisters.

7. As per the allegation in the FIR, the applicant is said to have
committed rape on the victim aged about 14 years, however, the age of
the victim has been found to be 14 years and 06 months as per her
certificate of Class 8th, however, there is no High School certificate or the
certificate of school first attended and 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 as no
injury has been found on her private and no spermatozoa has been found
in her vaginal smear. As per compliance report submitted by the learned
AGA, FSL report also shows negative report of pregnancy of the victim
though initially she was found pregnant as per urine pregnancy test
(UPT). It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this
case due to some property dispute and he has been languishing in jail
since 2.11.2025 and he is having no criminal history.

8. 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
BAIL No. 2457 of 2026
3

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.

9. Accordingly, the present application is ALLOWED.

10. Let the applicant- Indal Kumar involved in the aforementioned 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.

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground
for cancellation of bail.

12. 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.

13. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to
the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to
BAIL No. 2457 of 2026
4

ensure early release of the applicant.

14. 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 18, 2026
Abhishek

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…