Allahabad High Court
ANUJversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail, subject to conditions, as the case is fit for bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Anuj, who was arrested in a case involving alleged rape of a minor under various sections of the same Act and the POCSO Act. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, that the medico‑legal report did not support the rape allegation, and that he had no prior criminal record, having been in custody since January 2026. The State opposed bail, citing the victim’s statements that the applicant had committed rape after administering sedatives. The court noted that the co‑accused had already been granted bail and that the trial was likely to be prolonged. After weighing the facts and without expressing an opinion on the merits, the court found the case fit for bail and ordered the applicant’s release on a personal bond with conditions. The order expressly limited its scope to the bail application and did not prejudice the trial court’s future findings.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused charged with rape of a minor under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the POCSO Act despite serious allegations.
- Whether the lack of supporting medical evidence and claim of false implication justify bail.
- Whether the applicant’s clean criminal record and prolonged pre‑trial detention warrant bail.
- Whether the granting of bail to co‑accused influences the decision on bail for the applicant.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 127, 137(2), 3(5), 351(4), 352, 483, 64(1), 64(2)(Da)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- minor
- POCSO
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- pre‑trial detention
- medical evidence
- false implication
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26272 of 2026
Anuj
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravindra Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Vijay Bahadur, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ravindra Kumar,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Radhey Shyam, learned AGA for the
State-respondents and perused the record.
2. 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. 716 of 2025 under Sections 137(2),
351(4), 64(1), 64(2)(Da), 127, 3(5), 352 BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act registered
at Police Station Kairana, District Shamli during pendency of the trial.
3. At the very outset, learned A.G.A. states that notice has been served upon
the first informant.
4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case and medico-legal report of the
victim does not support the allegation of rape on her. It is further submitted
that age of the victim has been found to be 16 years and 9 months as per
birth certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation and 16-17 years as per
ossification test. It is further submitted that the co-accused Sajid and Sabana
@ Subhana @ Bano have already been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court vide orders dated 06.5.2026 and 02.7.2026 passed in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application Nos. 15188 of 2026 and 21985 of 2026 respectively.
It is further submitted that applicant, who has no criminal history, has been
languishing in jail since 17.1.2026 and he undertakes that he will not misuse
the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy
BAIL No. 26272 of 2026
2
pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion
of trial.
5. 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 and she has stated in her
statements recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS that applicant
committed rape on her.
6. Applicant is not named in the FIR, in which, it is alleged that co-accused
Bano is said to have enticed away the daughter of the first informant,
however, she has been recovered. The victim has stated in her statements
recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS that she was enticed away by her
aunt and kept in her house where her uncle Sajid committed rape on her,
thereafter, she was handed over to the applicant who took her to a house
where she was kept for some days and he also committed rape on her after
administering some sleeping drugs to her. However, medico-legal report of
the victim does not support the allegation of commission of rape on her as no
injury has been found on her private part. Applicant, who has no criminal
history, has been languishing in jail since 17.1.2026.
7. 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.
8. Let the applicant Anuj 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.
BAIL No. 26272 of 2026
3
(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.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. 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…