Allahabad High Court
PANKAJversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The bail application is allowed; the accused is released on bail with conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Pankaj, who was charged with offences under Sections 137(2), 64(1), 61(2) of the same Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed false implication, noting the victim’s contradictory age statements—she claimed to be 17, but an ossification test suggested she was 14‑15 years old—and her refusal to undergo a medico‑legal examination. The State argued that the victim, a minor, had identified the applicant as a rapist. The court examined the lack of prior criminal history, the prolonged pre‑trial detention since 30‑May‑2026, and the heavy pendency of cases, and concluded that bail was appropriate. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and several conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses. The order expressly limited its scope to the bail application and did not prejudice the trial court’s eventual judgment.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the seriousness of the alleged offences under BNS and the POCSO Act.
- Whether the alleged victim’s age (minor versus adult) and her statements affect the grant of bail.
- Whether the accused poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 180, 183, 351, 483, 61(2), 64(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- minor victim
- sexual offences
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- POCSO Act
- age dispute
- false implication
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26188 of 2026
Pankaj
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sandeep Kumar Pandey
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant who has filed
supplementary affidavit which is taken on record, Sri B.P. Maurya, learned
AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.
3. Name of Sri Sandeep Kumar Pandey appears in the cause list as counsel
for the first informant but he is not present today.
4. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer
to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 275 of 2026 under Sections 137(2),
64(1), 61(2) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act registered at Police Station Roravar,
District Aligarh during pendency of the trial.
5. At the very outset, learned A.G.A. states that notice has been served upon
the first informant.
6. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case and the victim has not stated
anything against the applicant in her statements recorded under sections 180
and 183 BNSS. It is further submitted that the victim has stated herself to be
of 17 years, however, as per ossification test, she has been found to be aged
about 14-15 years and she has refused to undergo medico-legal
examination. It is further submitted that applicant, who has no criminal
history, has been languishing in jail since 30.5.2026 and he undertakes that
he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in
BAIL No. 26188 of 2026
2
the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of
any early conclusion of trial.
7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail to
the applicant and submits that victim is aged about 14-15 years as per
ossification test and she has stated in her statement under section 180 BNSS
that applicant committed rape on her.
8. As per the FIR, applicant and co-accused are said to have enticed away
the daughter of the first informant aged about 17 years, however, she has
been recovered. The victim has stated in her statements recorded under
sections 183 BNSS that she was in love with co-accused Mithun who took
her to a hotel where he established physical relationship with her on her
consent and the applicant was standing outside the said room. The victim has
stated herself to be of 17 years, however, as per ossification test, she has
been found to be aged about 14-15 years and she has refused to undergo
medico-legal examination. There is no educational record of the victim.
Applicant, who has no criminal history, has been languishing in jail since
30.5.2026.
9. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected
from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find
it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED.
10. Let the applicant Pankaj involved in the aforesaid case crime be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with 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 not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)
recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek
BAIL No. 26188 of 2026
3
any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are
present in the trial court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
12. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of
determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free
to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led
unaffected by anything said in this order.
September 8, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…