Allahabad High Court
KANHAIYAversusSTATE 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 by Kanhaiya, who was arrested in connection with Crime No. 138 of 2026 under several sections of the B.N.S. and the POCSO Act. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, pointing out the absence of a rape allegation in the FIR and the medical report, and cited a settlement between the families. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the victim’s age (16 years 9 months) and her statement under Section 183 BNSS alleging rape. After reviewing the facts, the seriousness of the offence, the lack of incriminating evidence, the applicant’s clean record, and the Supreme Court’s recent guidelines on bail and jail overcrowding, the court decided to grant bail without commenting on the merits. The order directed the applicant to furnish a personal bond with two sureties and imposed standard bail conditions, with provisions for verification and prompt release through the Bail Order Management System.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged rape of a minor under the POCSO Act despite the seriousness of the offence.
- Whether the absence of a rape allegation in the FIR and the medical report, coupled with a claim of false implication, warrants bail.
- Whether a settlement/compromise between the families affects the grant of bail.
- Whether considerations of jail overcrowding and pendency of criminal trials justify bail in such cases.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- POCSO Act
- false implication
- settlement
- overcrowded jails
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29314 of 2026
Kanhaiya
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Parvesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Shri Parvesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant
and Shri Ashish Kumar Tripathi, 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. 138 of 2026, under Sections 127(2),
70(2), 351(2), 3(5) of B.N.S. and Section 5(g)/6 of POCSO Act, Police
Station Kotwali Sadabad, District Hathras, 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 there is no
allegation of rape in the first information report as well as in the statement
of the victim recorded under Sections 180, however, the victim in her
statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS has stated that the applicant
committed rape on her. It is further submitted that the medico legal report
does not support the allegation of commission of rape on her and the
medico legal examination has been conducted on the alleged date of
occurrence. It is further submitted that the age of the victim has been
found to be 16 years and 9 months as per certificate of School first
attended and the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183
BNSS has herself stated that some dispute arose between the family of the
BAIL No. 29314 of 2026
2
applicant and the victim, however, she has further stated that a
compromise was arrived at in the said dispute and at present no dispute
remains. It is further submitted that on perusal of the said settlement, it
appears that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case due to
that dispute. It is further submitted that the applicant is having no criminal
history and the applicant has been languishing in jail since 11.04.2026, 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 A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail
and it has been submitted by him that the victim is aged about 16 years
and 9 months as per certificate of school first attended and the victim in
her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS has stated that the
applicant committed rape on her.
5. There is no allegation of rape in the first information report as well as
in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180, however, the
victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS has stated that
the applicant committed rape on her and the medico legal report does not
support the allegation of commission of rape on her and the medico legal
examination has been conducted on the alleged date of occurrence. It is
further submitted that the age of the victim has been found to be 16 years
and 9 months as per certificate of School first attended and the victim in
her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS has herself stated that
some dispute arose between the family of the applicant and the victim,
however, she has further stated that a compromise was arrived at in the
said dispute and at present no dispute remains. It is further submitted that
on perusal of the said settlement, it appears that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in this case due to that dispute. It is further submitted
that the applicant is having no criminal history and the applicant has been
languishing in jail since 11.04.2026.
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. 29314 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- Kanhaiya 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. 29314 of 2026
4
12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
Jail Superintendent, Hathras 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…