Allahabad High Court

AMAN KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

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

Holding

The Court held that, notwithstanding the seriousness of the POCSO charge, the applicant is entitled to bail as the evidentiary contradictions and policy considerations outweigh the risk of non‑appearance.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Aman Kumar, who was arrested in a POCSO case alleging rape of a minor girl aged about 14 years. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, pointing to contradictions in the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the CrPC, lack of proper age verification, and an unsupportive medico‑legal report. The State opposed bail, relying on the victim’s statements that implicated the accused. The Court examined the nature of the offence, the evidentiary contradictions, the applicant’s clean record, and the policy considerations of overcrowded jails and the Supreme Court’s recent bail guidelines. Relying on the Apex Court’s decisions in Kapil Wadhawan v CBI and Maya Tiwari v State of U.P., the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail without expressing a view on the merits. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to standard bond and surety conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted to an accused in a POCSO offence involving a minor where there are contradictions in the victim’s statements.
Whether the lack of a radiological age determination and an unsupportive medico‑legal report affect the bail decision.
Whether the applicant’s clean criminal record and the issue of jail overcrowding justify bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 123, 137(2), 180, 183, 65(1)
POCSO Act — s. 3/4(2)

Subjects

bail
POCSO
minor victim
age determination
contradictory statements
Criminal Procedure Code
overcrowded jails
Supreme Court bail guidelines

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26282 of 2026

Aman Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhishek Tandon, Arvind Kumar,
Vivek Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A., Praveen Singh

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

1. List revised. Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel
for the applicant and Sri B.P. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.

2. Name of Sri Praveen Singh, learned counsel appear as counsel
for the first informant but he is not present.

3. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 168 of 2026, under
Sections 137(2), 65(1), 123 BNS and Section 3/4 (2) of POCSO
Act, Police Station Bhawanpur, District Meerut, during the
pendency of the trial.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and there
are material contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded
under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS. It is further submitted that the
age of the victim has been found to be around 14 years as per her
certificate of Class 8th, however, there is no High School certificate
or the certificate of school first attended and no radio-logical
examination of the victim has been conducted for her age
determination. It is further submitted that the medico-legal report of
the victim does not support the commission of rape on her. It is
also submitted that the applicant has been languishing in jail since
BAIL No. 26282 of 2026
2

24.5.2026 and he is having no criminal history. It is lastly submitted
that in case the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts, however, it is
submitted that the victim is a minor girl aged about 14 years and
she in her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS
has supported the allegations of commission of rape on her.

6. As per the allegation in the FIR, the applicant is said to have
enticed away the daughter of the first informant aged about 16
years, however, the victim has been recovered and there appears
to be material contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded
under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS as she in her statement under
Section 180 BNSS has stated that the the applicant took her to
bushes where he committed rape on her and thereafter she was
taken on bike whereas in her statement under Section 183 BNSS
she has stated that the applicant took her to bushes and committed
rape on her and she was left there. The age of the victim has been
found to be around 14 years as per her certificate of Class 8th,
however, there is no High School certificate or the certificate of
school first attended and no radio-logical examination of the victim
has been conducted for her age determination and the medico-
legal report of the victim does not support the commission of rape
on her. The applicant has been languishing in jail since 24.5.2026
and he is having no criminal history.

7. 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
BAIL No. 26282 of 2026
3

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.

8. Accordingly, the present application is ALLOWED.

9. Let the applicant- Aman Kuamr involved in the aforementioned
crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and
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 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.

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

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant
BAIL No. 26282 of 2026
4

through concerned Jail Superintendent 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.

September 8, 2026
Abhishek

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…