Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SANDEEP KUSHWAHAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Sandeep Kushwaha, who is charged under Sections 65(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 5(m) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for allegedly sexually assaulting a child aged 6-7 years. The prosecution’s FIR was lodged 6-7 months after the alleged incident, and the victim’s statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNS showed material contradictions. The medical examination report of the victim did not reveal any injuries or signs of sexual assault, and the accused has no prior criminal record. The court noted the delay in filing the FIR, the inconsistencies in the victim’s statements, and the lack of physical evidence, while refraining from expressing an opinion on the merits of the case. Accordingly, the court held that the applicant is entitled to bail and ordered his release on personal bond with two sureties and specific conditions. The order also directed procedural steps for electronic transmission of the bail order to the jail and trial court.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted in a child sexual assault case under BNS and POCSO considering the delay in FIR filing, contradictions in victim statements, and absence of medical evidence.
  • Whether the nature of the offence and the accused’s lack of prior criminal record justify bail without custodial interrogation.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • child sexual assault
  • POCSO
  • delay in FIR
  • contradictory statements
  • medical evidence
  • high court

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
         CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29492 of 2026

Sandeep Kushwaha
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                     Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)            :   Saurabh Yadav, Siddharth Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)       :   G.A.

Court No. - 66
           HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Saurabh Yadav, counsel for the applicant, Sri D.P.S. Chauhan,
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 during trial in Case Crime No. 136 of 2026, under Sections
65(2), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 5(m) / 6 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station
Sadar Bazar, District Meerut.

3. Counsel for the applicant submitted that as per the prosecution story, the
applicant was residing on first floor while the family of the victim was
residing on the ground floor six months back and during that time the
applicant sexually assaulted the victim aged about 6-7 years old. Counsel for
the applicant submitted that the FIR itself was lodged after 6-7 months. No
date and time of the incident has been mentioned in the FIR. It is further
submitted that there is serious contradiction in the statement of the victim
recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS. It is further submitted that the
medical examination report of the victim does not show any mark of injury
or any sign of sexual assault. It is further submitted that the delay has not
been properly explained in lodging the FIR. The correct fact is that the
delayed FIR was lodged just to sort out the money dispute by the father of
the victim with the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant has no
criminal history. It is further submitted that charge sheet has been filed in the
present case, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation.
The applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since
                                                         BAIL No. 29492 of 2026
                                 2


22.06.2026. 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 A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but
could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of
learned counsel for the parties; taking into account the contradiction in the
statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS; also
taking into account the delay of about 6-7 months in lodging the FIR;
coupled with the medical examination report of the victim and keeping in
view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused 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. Accordingly, the bail application
is allowed.

6. Let the applicant- Sandeep Kushwaha 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.

7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

8. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
                                                                                                BAIL No. 29492 of 2026
                                                                      3


                                    verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

                                    9. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of
                                    computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website
                                    of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel with the
                                    undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.

                                    10. 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.

                                    11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
                                    concerned Jail Superintendent via e-mail or on e-prison portal and Trial
                                    Court via e-mode 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 as well as Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan and others Vs. State of
                                    Jharkhand and another, in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 169 of 2025,
                                    decided on 29.05.2026.



                                                                                 (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
                                    October 1, 2026
                                    CS/-




Digitally signed by :-
CHANDAN SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.