Allahabad High Court

VISHNU DAYAL @ CHHOTUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 13 September 2026
Bench: YOGESH DUBEY JOINT REGISTRAR JUDICIAL

Holding

The applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Vishnu Dayal, who was arrested in connection with offences under the BNS, the POCSO Act and the SC/ST Act, including alleged rape of a minor. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, that the FIR was lodged after a 20‑day delay, and that there were conflicting records regarding the victim's age, with no radiological age verification or supporting medico‑legal evidence of rape. The State contended that the victim was a minor of about 14‑15 years and emphasized the seriousness of the charges. Referring to Supreme Court precedents on bail (Kapil Wadhawan v CBI, Maya Tiwari v State of U.P.) and the policy directive on bail, the Court, without expressing an opinion on the merits, held that the applicant was entitled to bail. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed subject to personal bond, sureties and strict conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving alleged rape of a minor under the POCSO Act, SC/ST Act and other offences.
Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the dispute over the victim's age affect the bail eligibility.
Whether the seriousness of the offences outweighs the considerations of jail overcrowding and the applicant's lack of criminal history.

Legislation cited

BNS — s. 115(2), 137(2), 352, 65(1)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 5, 6
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(V)

Subjects

bail
minor victim
POCSO Act
SC/ST Act
false implication
age dispute
criminal procedure
jail overcrowding
Supreme Court bail jurisprudence

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27045 of 2026

Vishnu Dayal @ Chhotu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sandeep Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Abhishek Singh, holding brief of Sri Sandeep Mishra,
learned counsel for the applicant and Sri 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. 606 of 2025, under Sections 137(2),
65(1), 115(2), 352 of BNS and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act and Section
3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Surajpur, District Gautam Buddha
Nagar, during the pendency of the trial.

3. At the very outset, learned AGA submits that notice has been served on
the first informant.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and FIR has been
lodged after a delay of 20 days and from the conduct of the victim and
other attending facts and circumstances of the, it appears that she was in
consensual relationship with the applicant It is further submitted that there
are two conflicting records of date of birth of the victim and the I.O. has
found her date of birth as 1.1.2008, however, another document which is
said to be document of school first attended is 3.4.2011 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 1.12.2025
BAIL No. 27045 of 2026
2

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,
however, it is submitted that the the victim is a minor girl aged about 14
years and 05 months as per the school record of first attended.

6. Initially a report of missing of the victim has been lodged by the first
informant alleging therein her daughter had gone missing, however, after
20 days of lodging of the missing report, first informant has lodged an
FIR alleging therein that she came to know from the marks-sheet of the
victim that she is aged about 15 years and the applicant has enticed away
his daughter. The I.O. has found the date of birth of the victim as
1.1.2008, however, late on her date of birth has been found to be 3.4.2011
as per the record of school first attended and and no radio-logical
examination of the victim has been conducted for her age determination.
The medico-legal report of the victim does not support the commission of
rape on her. The applicant has been languishing in jail since 1.12.2025
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 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- Vishnu Dayal @ Chhotu 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
BAIL No. 27045 of 2026
3

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 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.

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
September 14, 2026
Abhishek

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…