Allahabad High Court
RAHULversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the case is fit for bail and allowed the bail application with conditions.
Summary
Rahul was arrested in a case involving alleged sexual offences against a 16‑year‑old girl. The FIR alleged he enticed the minor and faced charges under sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(M), 352, 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and sections 5L/6 of the POCSO Act. Rahul contended that the girl consented to a matrimonial alliance, that the medical report did not support rape, and that he was falsely implicated, having no prior criminal record. The State argued that the victim’s minority made any consent immaterial. The High Court, after reviewing the record, held that the case was suitable for bail and granted it subject to strict conditions. The order emphasized that the bail decision does not prejudice the trial’s merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused in a case involving alleged sexual offences against a minor under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and POCSO Act
- Whether the consent of a minor is legally relevant to the charge of rape
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 351(3), 352, 483, 64(2)(M), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 5L, 6
Subjects
- bail
- minor victim
- consent
- POCSO Act
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- false implication
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26332 of 2026
Rahul
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lorik Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Lorik Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.P. Maurya, learned
AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.
3. 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. 213 of 2026 under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(M), 352, 351(3)
BNS and 5L/6 POCSO Act registered at Police Station Nandganj, District Ghazipur
during pendency of the trial.
4. At the very outset, learned A.G.A. states that notice has been served upon the first
informant.
5. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case and on perusal of the statements of the victim
recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS, it appears that she is a consenting party
and has entered into matrimonial alliance with the applicant on her own free will. It is
further submitted that age of the victim has been found to be 16 years and 5 months as
per certificate of High School and her medico-legal report does not support the
allegation of rape on her. It is further submitted that applicant, who has no criminal
history, has been languishing in jail since 07.7.2026 and he undertakes that he will not
misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy
pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
6. 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 16 years and 5 months as
per certificate of High School and her consent is immaterial.
7. As per the FIR, applicant is said to have enticed away the daughter of the first
informant aged about 16 years, however, she has been recovered. The victim has
BAIL No. 26332 of 2026
2
stated in her statements recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS that she was in
love with the applicant and has entered into matrimonial alliance with the applicant on
her own free will. The victim has been found to be aged about 16 years and 5 months
as per certificate of High School and her medico-legal report does not support the
allegation of rape on her. Applicant, who has no criminal history, has been
languishing in jail since 07.7.2026.
8. 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.
9. Let the applicant Rahul 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.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
11. 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 9, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…