Allahabad High Court
RAJATversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that, in view of the absence of incriminating material, the applicant’s clean record and the need to decongest jails, bail could be granted notwithstanding the serious nature of the alleged offence.
Summary
Rajat was arrested in connection with Crime No. 506 of 2025, charged under sections 137(2), 87, 65(1), 351(2) of the B.N.S. and sections 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act for alleged rape of a minor girl aged 15‑16. The applicant contended that the victim had consented, that the medical report did not support a rape allegation, and that there was no incriminating material against him; he also had no prior criminal record and had been in jail since 21‑08‑2025. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the victim’s minority. The court, considering the lack of substantive evidence, the applicant’s clean record, jail overcrowding, and Supreme Court precedents (Kapil Wadhawan vs CBI, Maya Tiwari vs State of U.P., and the Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail), granted bail without expressing an opinion on the merits, subject to strict conditions. The order directed the issuance of a personal bond, verification of identities, and prompt release through the Bail Order Management System.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a POCSO‑related offence involving a minor where the victim’s statement suggests consent and there is no incriminating material.
- Whether the applicant’s clean criminal record and jail overcrowding justify bail despite the seriousness of the alleged crime.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 137(2), 351(2), 65(1), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 3, 4(2)
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- minor
- consent
- jail overcrowding
- Supreme Court precedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28623 of 2026
Rajat
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashok Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav, Advocate appearing as panel lawyer
for High Court Legal Services Committee on behalf of the applicant and
Shri B.P. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. At
the very outset, learned AGA submits that the notice has been served on
the first informant.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 506 of 2025, under Sections 137(2),
87, 65(1), 351(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, Police
Station Shikohabad, District Firozabad 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 on perusal
of the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183
BNSS, it appears that she is a consenting party and her medico legal
report does not support the allegation of commission of rape on her. It is
further submitted that the age of the victim has been found to be 16 years
as per ossification test and the age of the victim has been found to be 15
years as per certificate of Class VIII, however, there is no certificate of
high school or certificate of school first attended. It is further submitted
that the applicant is having no criminal history and the applicant has been
languishing in jail since 21.08.2025, in case, he is granted bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
BAIL No. 28623 of 2026
2
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail
and it has been submitted by him that the victim is a minor girl aged about
15 years as per certificate of Class VIII and the age of the victim has been
found to be 16 years as per ossification test.
5. As per first information report, the some unknown person is said to
have enticed away the daughter of the first informant, however, the victim
has been recovered and on perusal of the statement of the victim recorded
under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, it appears that she is a consenting
party and her medico legal report does not support the allegation of
commission of rape on her. It is further submitted that the age of the
victim has been found to be 16 years as per ossification test and the age of
the victim has been found to be 15 years as per certificate of Class VIII,
however, there is no certificate of high school or certificate of school first
attended. It is further submitted that the applicant is having no criminal
history and the applicant has been languishing in jail since 21.08.2025.
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- Rajat 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
BAIL No. 28623 of 2026
3
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
Jail Superintendent, Firozabad 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…