Allahabad High Court
SANTOSH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail in the present case.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Santosh Kumar, who was arrested in a POCSO case involving a minor victim. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, that the victim’s statements under Section 180 BNSS were silent against him while her statement under Section 183 BNSS indicated a consensual relationship, and that there was no medical evidence of rape. The State contended that the victim was a minor, aged between 14 and 17, and was pregnant, making the allegations serious. After reviewing the record, the court, without expressing an opinion on the merits, found the case suitable for bail, noting the applicant’s clean record and the prolonged trial pendency. The court ordered his release on bail with a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and specific conditions, and clarified that the order does not prejudice the trial court’s eventual judgment.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 BNS to an accused in a POCSO case where the victim is a minor but alleges consensual relations.
- Whether the discrepancy in the victim’s age and lack of medical corroboration affect the bail decision.
- Whether the accused’s lack of prior criminal history and the pendency of trial justify bail.
- Whether the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS influence the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 137(2), 180, 183, 351, 65(1)
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5(J)(2), 6
Subjects
- bail
- minor
- POCSO
- consent
- trial pendency
- false implication
- age discrepancy
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26227 of 2026
Santosh Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dhirendra Babu Mishra, Ravindra
Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Seeta Singh, Vikram
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Uma Shankar Mishra, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused
the record.
3. Names of Ms. Seeta Singh and Sri Vikram appear in the cause list as
counsel for the first informant but none of them is present.
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. 390 of 2025 under Sections 137(2),
65(1) BNS and 5(J)(2)/6 POCSO Act registered at Police Station
Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi during pendency of the trial.
5. 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 statement under section 180 BNSS.
However, in her statement under section 183 BNSS, she has stated that she
left her home and went to Mumbai on her own free will and she met the
applicant there and physical relationship was established between them with
her consent. It is further submitted that age of the victim has been found to
be 17 years as per radiological report and around 14 years 4 months as per
certificate of class VIth, however, there is no certificate of High School or
BAIL No. 26227 of 2026
2
school first attended. It is further submitted that medico-legal report of the
victim does not support the allegation of rape on her. It is further submitted
that applicant, who has no criminal history, has been languishing in jail since
19.4.2026 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It
has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the
Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail to
the applicant and submits that victim is a minor girl aged about 14 years 4
months as per certificate of class VIth and around 17 years as per
radiological report and she is pregnant.
7. As per the FIR, some unknown person is said to have enticed away the
daughter of the first informant aged about 14 years, however, she has been
recovered. The victim has not stated anything against the applicant in her
statement under section 180 BNSS, however, in her statement under section
183 BNSS, she has stated that she left her home and went to Mumbai on her
own free will and she met the applicant there and physical relationship was
established between them with her consent. The victim has been found to be
aged about 17 years as per radiological report and around 14 years 4 months
as per certificate of class VIth, however, there is no certificate of High
School or school first attended. It is submitted that if benefit of two years is
given to the victim, she would be major. Applicant, who has no criminal
history, has been languishing in jail since 19.4.2026.
8. 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.
9. Let the applicant Santosh Kumar 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.
BAIL No. 26227 of 2026
3
(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
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.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
11. 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.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
September 8, 2026
Madhurima
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…