Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

RAJ BAHADUR @ GUDDUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The Court allowed the bail application, granting bail to the applicant with conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Raj Bahadur @ Guddu, who was charged under Sections 65(2), 115(2), 351(2) of the same Act and Sections 5 and 6(1) of the POCSO Act for alleged penetrative sexual assault on his nine‑year‑old daughter. The applicant argued that the victim and the first informant had turned hostile, the medico‑legal report did not support the rape allegation, and he had no prior criminal record, having been in custody since 1 October 2025. The State opposed bail but did not dispute these factual contentions. After reviewing the record, the Court, without expressing an opinion on the merits, found the case suitable for bail and ordered release on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties, imposing standard conditions to prevent witness tampering and ensure attendance at trial dates. The order expressly limited its scope to the bail application and did not prejudice the trial court’s future findings.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case involving alleged penetrative sexual assault of a minor under the POCSO Act.
  • Whether the applicant’s claim of false implication, hostile witnesses, and lack of supporting medico‑legal evidence warrants bail despite the seriousness of the charges.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • sexual assault
  • POCSO Act
  • false implication
  • hostile witnesses
  • bail conditions
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

              HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

          CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26274 of 2026

Raj Bahadur @ Guddu
                                                                         .....Applicant(s)
                                         Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                    .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                                   :    Virendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                              :    G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant who has filed
supplementary affidavit which is taken on record, Sri O.P. Singh, 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. 439 of 2025 under Sections 65(2), 115(2), 351(2) BNS and
5MN/6(1) POCSO Act registered at Police Station-Sector 63, NOIDA, District
Gautam Budh Nagar 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 the victim as well as the first informant have
turned hostile before the learned trial court and they have not supported the allegations
made in the FIR. It is further submitted that medico-legal report of the victim also
does not support the allegation of rape on her and she is aged about nine years as per
marksheet of class I. It is further submitted that applicant, who has no criminal history,
has been languishing in jail since 01.10.2025 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.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
applicant, however, he does not dispute the aforesaid facts.

6. As per the FIR, applicant is said to have committed penetrative sexual assault on the
victim who is his daughter. The victim is aged about nine years as per marksheet of
class I and her medico-legal report does not support the allegation of penetrative
sexual assault on her. Applicant, who has no criminal history, has been languishing in
jail since 01.10.2025.
                                                                                                     BAIL No. 26274 of 2026
                                                                         2

                                    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 Raj Bahadur @ Guddu 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 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.

                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Madhurima
                                                                                            (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.