Allahabad High Court
ANIKESHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the accused Anikesh, who was charged under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) of the same Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed false implication, highlighting contradictions between the victim's statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Act, and argued that the victim was legally an adult based on ossification tests and school records, with no medical evidence of rape. The State opposed bail, but the court noted the lack of prior criminal history, the overcrowding of jails, and the need to avoid unnecessary trial delays. Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Kapil Wadhawan v CBI and the Allahabad High Court’s precedent in Maya Tiwari v State of U.P., the court decided that bail should be granted without commenting on the merits. The order released the applicant on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or further offences.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the nature of the alleged offences.
- Whether the contradictions in the victim's statements and the determination of her age affect the bail decision.
- Whether the accused's clean criminal record and the circumstances of jail overcrowding justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 180, 183, 483, 64(1), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- contradictory statements
- POCSO Act
- overcrowded jails
- Section 483
- court conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27323 of 2026
Anikesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aditya Yadav, Aryan Yadav, Piyush
Kumar, Vishal Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Vishal Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiv Dutt
Shukla, 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. 493 of 2026 under Sections 137(2),
87, 64(1) BNS, 3/4 POCSO Act registered at Police Station Kotwali
Khalilabad, District Sant kabir 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 is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that 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 as
she has not stated anything regarding commission of sexual assault on her in
her statement under Section 180 BNSS whereas in her statement under
Section 183 BNSS, she has stated that applicant committed sexual assault on
her. It is further submitted that age of the victim has been found to be 18
years as per her ossification test and 17 years and 11 months as per
certificate of High School and her medico-legal report does not support
commission of rape on her. It is also submitted that applicant, who has no
criminal history, has been languishing in jail since 09.6.2026. It is lastly
submitted that in case applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty
BAIL No. 27323 of 2026
2
of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail to
the applicant.
6. As per the FIR, applicant is said to have enticed away the daughter of the
first informant on false promise of marriage. However, she has been
recovered and there appears to be material contradictions in her statements
recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS. The victim has been found to
be aged about 18 years as per her ossification test and 17 years and 11
months as per certificate of High School and her medico-legal report does
not support commission of rape on her. Applicant, who has no criminal
history, has been languishing in jail since 09.6.2026.
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. Let the applicant Anikesh 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.
BAIL No. 27323 of 2026
3
(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.
12. 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 29, 2026
Madhurima
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…