Allahabad High Court

VIKAS KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: YOGESH DUBEY JOINT REGISTRAR JUDICIAL

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as there is no incriminating material against him, he is not named in the FIR, and considerations of jail overcrowding and Supreme Court precedents warrant his release.

Summary

Vikas Kumar applied for bail in a case registered under Section 65(1) of the BNSS and Sections 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act, alleging false implication as his name does not appear in the FIR and the victim's statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS. The applicant argued that the victim, aged 16‑17, was not proven to have been raped based on medical reports, and he has no prior criminal record, having been in custody since 23 May 2026. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged offence. The court, considering the lack of incriminating material, the applicant’s clean record, jail overcrowding, and recent Supreme Court precedents (Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI, Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P.), granted bail without commenting on the merits. Bail was ordered with a personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions, and the order was to be communicated to the jail via the Bail Order Management System.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a POCSO‑related offence when the FIR does not name him and there is no incriminating evidence.
Whether the applicant’s lack of criminal history and the issue of jail overcrowding justify bail despite the seriousness of the alleged crime.

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 180, 183, 65(1)
POCSO Act — s. 3, 4(2)

Subjects

bail
POCSO
false implication
age of victim
medical evidence
jail overcrowding
Supreme Court precedent
conditions of bail

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26229 of 2026

Vikas Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhinav Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Shri Abhinav Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and
Shri Ashish Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record. At the very outset, learned AGA submits that the notice has been
served on the first informant.

2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 50 of 2026, under Sections 65(1) of
B.N.S. and Section 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station Indergarh,
District Kannauj, during the pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case though there is no
incriminating material against him. It is further submitted that the
applicant is not named in the first information report and his name also
does not find mention in the statement of the victim recorded under
Section 180 BNSS, whereas, the victim in her statement recorded under
Section 183 BNSS for the first time has stated that before entering into
physical relationship with the co-accused Vishnu, she was in contact with
the applicant and the applicant established physical relationship with the
victim 4-5 times. It is further submitted that the age of the victim has been
found to be around 16 years as per certificate of school first attended and
the age of the victim has been found to be 16-17 years as per ossification
test and the medico legal report does not support the allegation of
commission of rape on her. It is further submitted that the applicant is
BAIL No. 26229 of 2026
2

having no criminal history and the applicant has been languishing in jail
since 23.05.2026, in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty
of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

5. As per first information report, applicant is not named in the first
information report and as per first information report, co-accused Vishnu
is said to have enticed away the daugther of the first informant and the
name of the applicant also does not find mention in the statement of the
victim recorded under Section 180 BNSS, whereas, the victim in her
statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS for the first time has stated
that before entering into physical relationship with the co-accused Vishnu,
she was in contact with the applicant and the applicant established
physical relationship with the victim 4-5 times. It is further submitted that
the age of the victim has been found to be around 16 years as per
certificate of school first attended and the age of the victim has been
found to be 16-17 years as per ossification test and the medico legal
report does not support the allegation of commission of rape on her. It is
further submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history and the
applicant has been languishing in jail since 23.05.2026.

6. 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
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.

7. Accordingly, the present application is ALLOWED.

8. Let the applicant- Vikas Kumar involved in the aforementioned crime
be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties
BAIL No. 26229 of 2026
3

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.

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

10. 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.

11. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to
the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to
ensure early release of the applicant.

12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
Jail Superintendent, Kannauj 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 8, 2026
RKM

Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…