Allahabad High Court

RAJ @ PRIYANSHUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 8 September 2026
Bench: YOGESH DUBEY JOINT REGISTRAR JUDICIAL

Holding

The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Raj @ Priyanshu, accused under Sections 137(2), 65(1) of the Evidence Act and Sections 3 and 4(2) of the POCSO Act for alleged rape of a 13-year‑10‑month‑old girl. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, that the victim’s statement under Section 180 did not allege rape, that there was no medical injury, and that his age could not be conclusively proved. The prosecution highlighted the victim’s Section 183 statement alleging rape by deceit and a medico‑legal report showing a torn hymen. The Court, referring to Supreme Court precedents (Kapil Wadhawan vs CBI, Maya Tiwari vs State UP, and the 2023 policy on bail), held that the circumstances warranted bail despite the seriousness of the offence. Consequently, the bail application was allowed with standard conditions and verification procedures.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted in a POCSO case involving alleged rape of a minor based on the available evidence.
Whether the inconsistencies in the victim’s statements and lack of medical injuries affect the bail decision.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing the trial.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 137(2), 65(1)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 3, 4(2)

Subjects

bail
POCSO
rape of minor
age verification
medico‑legal evidence
Supreme Court guidelines
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28375 of 2026

Raj @ Priyanshu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mukesh Joshi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amarjeet Choudhary, G.A., Krishna
Kumar Singh, Shalini Pandey

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

1. Heard Sri Rahul Saxena, holding brief of Sri Mukesh Joshi, learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri O.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State
and Sri Amarjeet Choudhary, learned counsel for the first informant.

2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 663 of 2026, under Sections 137(2),
65(1) BNS and Sections 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station Majhola,
District Moradabad, during the pendency of the trial.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no
allegation of rape in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections
180 BNSS, however, she in her statement under Section 183 BNSS has
stated that the she had left her home on her free will and she was in love
with the applicant and the applicant established physical relationship with
her without her consent. It is further submitted that the age of the victim
has been found to be 13 years and 10 months 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 as no injury has been found on the internal and external part of the
body of the victim. It is also submitted that the applicant has been
languishing in jail since 30.6.2026 and he is having no criminal history. It
BAIL No. 28375 of 2026
2

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.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail and it is submitted that the victim in her
statement under Section 183 BNSS has categorically stated that the
applicant committed rape on her and the age of the victim is 13 years and
10 months as per certificate of Class 8th and in the medico-legal report
there are signs and hymen of the victim has been found torn at the
position of 3 and 10 o'clock.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail
but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

6. As per the allegation in the FIR, some unknown person is said to have
enticed away the daughter of the first informant, however, the victim has
been recovered and she has not stated anything against the applicant in
her statement under Section 180 BNSS whereas she in her statement
under Section 183 BNSS has stated that the she had left her home on her
free will and she was in love with the applicant and the applicant
committed rape on her by deceit. The age of the victim has been found to
be 13 years and 10 months 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. In the medico-legal report of the
victim, no internal or external injury has been found on her and her
hymen has been found torn at the position of 3 to 10 o'clock. The
applicant has been languishing in jail since 30.6.2026 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
BAIL No. 28375 of 2026
3

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- Raj @ Priyanshu 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 through
BAIL No. 28375 of 2026
4

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 9, 2026
Abhishek

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…