Allahabad High Court
FARMANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Farman, accused in Crime No. 111 of 2026 under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act for alleged rape of a 15‑year‑11‑month‑old girl. The applicant claimed false implication, pointing to contradictory victim statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S. and the absence of medical or radiological evidence to confirm the alleged rape or the victim’s age. The prosecution highlighted the victim’s minor status and her statement under Section 183 alleging rape. The Court, noting the contradictions, lack of conclusive evidence, the applicant’s clean record, and the need to address jail overcrowding, referred to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Kapil Wadhawan v CBI (2025) and Maya Tiwari v State UP (2024) on bail. Without expressing an opinion on the merits, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail and ordered his release on personal bond with conditions. The order also directed verification of identities and prompt communication to the jail through the Bail Order Management System.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a POCSO‑related rape case where the victim is a minor and the evidence includes contradictory statements and lack of medical proof.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 137(2), 65(1), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3/4(2)
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- minor
- POCSO
- contradictory statements
- jail overcrowding
- Section 180
- Section 183
- B.N.S.
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26976 of 2026
Farman
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Zainul Abdin
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Syed Khayyam Haider
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Shri Raghvendra Singh, holding brief of Shri Zainul Abdin,
learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Syed Khayyam Haider, learned
counsel for the first informant and Shri B.P. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for
the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 111 of 2026, under Sections 137(2),
87, 65(1) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station
Azeem Nagar, District Rampur, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case though there is no
incriminating material against him. It is further submitted that there are
material contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under
Sections 180 and 183 BNSS as the victim in her statement recorded under
Section 180 BNSS has stated that she had left her home on her own free
will and had gone along with the applicant and the physical relationship
was established between them on mutual consent, whereas, the victim in
her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS has stated that she had
gone along with the co-accused and lived with the applicant for 8 days,
where the applicant committed rape on her. It is further submitted that the
age of the victim has been found to be 15 years and 11 months as per
certificate of Class IX, however, there is no certificate of high school or
certificate of school first attended. It is further submitted that the medico
BAIL No. 26976 of 2026
2
legal report does not support the allegation of commission rape on her
and no radio-logical examination has been conducted for her age
determination. It is further submitted that the applicant is having no
criminal history and the applicant has been languishing in jail since
13.06.2026, in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of
bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A.
have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted by
them that the age of the victim has been found to be 15 years and 11
months as per certificate of Class IX and she is a minor girl and the victim
in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS has stated that the
applicant committed rape on her.
5. As per first information report, the applicant and co-accused are said to
have enticed away the daughter of the first informant, however, the victim
has been recovered and the victim in her statement recorded under
Section 180 BNSS has stated that she had left her home on her own free
will and had gone along with the applicant and the physical relationship
was established between them on mutual consent, whereas, the victim in
her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS has stated that she had
gone along with the co-accused and lived with the applicant for 8 days,
where the applicant committed rape on her. It is further submitted that the
age of the victim has been found to be 15 years and 11 months as per
certificate of Class IX, however, there is no certificate of high school or
certificate of school first attended. It is further submitted that the medico
legal report does not support the allegation of commission rape on her
and no radio-logical examination has been conducted for her age
determination. It is further submitted that the applicant is having no
criminal history and the applicant has been languishing in jail since
13.06.2026.
6. 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
BAIL No. 26976 of 2026
3
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 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.
7. Accordingly, the present application is ALLOWED.
8. Let the applicant- Farman 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.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. 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.
11. 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.
BAIL No. 26976 of 2026
4
12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
Jail Superintendent, Rampur 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.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
September 14, 2026
RKM
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…