Allahabad High Court
DHARMENDRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail pending trial.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Dharmendra, accused in Crime No. 141 of 2026 for alleged gang rape of a 14‑year‑old girl under sections of the B.N.S., the POCSO Act and the SC/ST Act. The applicant claimed false implication, lack of incriminating material, delay in filing the FIR, and absence of medical evidence supporting the rape allegation, while asserting no prior criminal record. The prosecution highlighted the victim’s statement alleging gang rape and the seriousness of the offences. The Court, noting jail overcrowding, pendency of cases, and recent Supreme Court guidelines in Kapil Wadhawan v CBI and Maya Tiwari v State of U.P., decided to grant bail without expressing an opinion on the merits. The bail was ordered on condition of personal bond, sureties, and compliance with stipulated conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving alleged gang rape under the POCSO and SC/ST Acts despite the seriousness of the allegations.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and lack of medical corroboration justify bail.
- Whether jail overcrowding and Supreme Court bail guidelines warrant release of the accused pending trial.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- gang rape
- POCSO Act
- SC/ST Act
- jail overcrowding
- pre‑trial detention
- false implication
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28406 of 2026
Dharmendra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandra Prakash Singh, Shad Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sriram Dhar Dubey
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Shri Chandra Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant,
Shri Sriram Dhar Dubey, 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. 141 of 2026, under Sections 49,
70(2), 74, 351(3) of B.N.S. and Section 5g/6 of POCSO Act and Section
3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Brijmanganj, District Maharajganj,
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 the first
information report has been lodged after delay of five days and there is no
allegation of gang rape in the first information report. It is further
submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Sections 180
and 183 BNSS has stated that the applicant and three other co-accused
persons committed gang rape on the victim. It is further submitted that the
age of the victim has been found to be 14 years and 9 months as per
certificate of Class VIII, however, there is no certificate of high school or
certificate of school first attended and no radio-logical examination has
been conducted for her age determination. It is further submitted that the
medico legal report does not support the allegation of commission rape
on her. It is further submitted that co-accused Mithun Nishad has already
BAIL No. 28406 of 2026
2
been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2026 passed in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.27658 of 2026. It is further submitted
that the applicant is having no criminal history and the applicant has been
languishing in jail since 03.06.2026, 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 applicant is a minor girl aged about 14 years and 9 months
as per certificate of Class VIII and the victim in her statement recorded
under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS has categorically stated that the
applicant and three other co-accused persons committed gang rape on
her.
5. There is no allegation of rape in the FIR, which has been lodged after
delay of five days alleging therein that the applicant and three other co-
accused persons are said to have sexually harassed and outraged the
modesty of the victim. However, the victim in her statement recorded
under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS has stated that she was in love with
one Ravi and had gone to meet him in the dead of the night of 28.05.2026,
where the applicant and three other co-accused persons committed gang
rape on her. It is further submitted that the age of the victim has been
found to be 14 years and 9 months as per certificate of Class VIII,
however, there is no certificate of high school or certificate of school first
attended and no radio-logical examination has been conducted for her age
determination. It is further submitted that the medico legal report does not
support the allegation of commission rape on her. Co-accused Mithun
Nishad has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated
03.09.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.27658 of 2026.
It is further submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history and
the applicant has been languishing in jail since 03.06.2026.
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. 28406 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- Dharmendra 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. 28406 of 2026
4
12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
Jail Superintendent, Mahrajganj 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
RKM
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…