Allahabad High Court

NAVEENversusSTATE 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 Naveen, who was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 74, 351(2), 65(1) of the IPC and Sections 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act. Naveen argued that he was falsely implicated, pointing to contradictions in the victim's statements, discrepancies in her date of birth, and a medico‑legal report that did not support a rape allegation. The prosecution highlighted that the victim, a minor, had identified Naveen as the perpetrator in her statement. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Kapil Wadhawan vs CBI, Maya Tiwari vs State UP) and the policy on bail to alleviate jail overcrowding, the Court, without expressing a view on the merits, held that Naveen was entitled to bail. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed subject to standard bond and surety conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused in a POCSO case where the FIR does not expressly allege rape but the victim’s statement does.
Whether contradictions in the victim’s statements and discrepancies in her date of birth affect the bail decision.
Whether the Supreme Court’s guidelines on bail and considerations of jail overcrowding compel the grant of bail in this case.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 351(2), 65(1), 74
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4(2)

Subjects

bail
POCSO
minor victim
false implication
contradictory statements
jail overcrowding
Supreme Court guidelines

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28414 of 2026

Naveen
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rishabh Agarwal, Shantanu Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Preetam Yadav

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

1. Heard Sri Rishabh Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Shiv Dutt Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Sarvesh Chandra
Mishra, holding brief of Sri Preetam Yadav, learned counsel for the first
informant. Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on
record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 131 of 2026, under Sections 74,
351(2), 65(1) BNS and Section 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station Eka,
District Firozabad, 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 FIR and there are material contradictions in the
statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS and
her statement given before the doctor. It is further submitted that there are
two conflicting documents regarding the date of birth of the victim as the
date of birth of the victim is 25.3.2011 as per certificate of Class 5th and
25.3.2012 as per certificate of High School. 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 10.7.2026 and he is having one criminal history which has been
duly explained. 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
BAIL No. 28414 of 2026
2

proceedings.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and the A.G.A. have
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid
facts, however, it is submitted that the victim is a minor girl aged about 14
years as per High School certificate and certificate of High School shall
prevail over the certificate of Class 5th and she in her statement recorded
under Sections 180 BNSS has stated that the applicant committed rape on
her.

5. There is no allegation of rape in the FIR and there appears to be
material contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under
Sections 180 and 183 BNSS and that given before the doctor. The date of
birth of the victim is 25.3.2011 as per certificate of Class 5th and
25.3.2012 as per certificate of High School. The medico-legal report of
the victim does not support the commission of rape on her. The applicant
has been languishing in jail since 10.7.2026 and he is having one criminal
history which has been duly explained.

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
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- Naveen 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:-
BAIL No. 28414 of 2026
3

(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.

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 9, 2026
Abhishek

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…