Allahabad High Court
RAHUL KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail and allowed the bail application.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Rahul Kumar, who was implicated in a rape case involving a minor aged 13 years and 10 months. The victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the same Act were inconsistent, and the medical report did not corroborate the allegation, while the accused was not named in the FIR. The State argued that the victim, a minor, had explicitly accused the applicant in her statement under Section 183, warranting denial of bail. The applicant contended his non‑inclusion in the FIR, lack of medical evidence, and his willingness to comply with strict bail conditions. After weighing the totality of facts and the evidentiary gaps, the court found the case fit for bail and ordered release on a personal bond with sureties and several conditions. 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 in a rape case involving a minor when the victim’s statements are contradictory and medical evidence is lacking.
- Whether the applicant’s non‑mention in the FIR and absence of forensic proof affect the bail decision.
- Whether the applicant’s prior criminal history and current detention justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 180, 183, 351(3), 65(1)
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3/4(2)
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- minor
- POCSO Act
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26273 of 2026
Rahul Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Saxena
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Amit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.P.
Maurya, 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. 130 of 2026 under Sections 65(1),
351(3) BNS and 3/4(2) POCSO Act registered at Police Station
Palimukimpur, District Aligarh 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 is
not named in the FIR and his name also does not find mention in the
statement of the victim recorded under section 180 BNSS. However, in the
statement of the victim recorded under sections 183 BNSS, she has stated for
the first time that applicant committed rape on her. It is further submitted
that age of the victim has been found to be 13 years and 10 months as per
certificate of class Vth, however, there is no certificate of High School or
school first attended and no radiological examination has been conducted for
determination of her age. 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 has criminal history of one case in which he is on
anticipatory bail and he has been languishing in jail in the present case since
04.5.2026. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes that he will not
BAIL No. 26273 of 2026
2
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.
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 aged about 13 years and
10 months as per certificate of class Vth and she has stated in her statement
recorded under section 183 BNSS that applicant committed rape on her.
6. Applicant is not named in the FIR as per which, co-accused Shivam is
said to have enticed away the daughter of the first informant and committed
rape on her. Name of the applicant also does not find mention in the
statement of the victim recorded under section 180 BNSS. However, in the
statement of the victim recorded under sections 183 BNSS, she has stated for
the first time that applicant committed rape on her. The victim has been
found to be aged about 13 years and 10 months as per certificate of class
Vth, however, there is no certificate of High School or school first attended
and no radiological examination has been conducted for determination of her
age. Medico-legal report of the victim does not support the allegation of rape
on her. Applicant has criminal history of one case in which he is on
anticipatory bail and he has been languishing in jail in the present case since
04.5.2026.
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 Rahul 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.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
BAIL No. 26273 of 2026
3
(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.
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…