Allahabad High Court

ABHISHEKversusSTATE OF U.P. THROUGH SECRETARY HOME, U.P. AT LUCKNOW AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 23 September 2026
Bench: YOGESH DUBEY JOINT REGISTRAR JUDICIAL

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Abhishek in a case under sections of the B.N.S. and the POCSO Act. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, citing lack of incriminating material, contradictions in the victim's statements, and evidence of a consensual relationship. The prosecution contended that the applicant had a prior similar case and that the victim's testimony was imminent. Referring to Supreme Court precedents (Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI, Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P.) and a policy directive on bail, the court, without addressing the merits, held that the applicant was entitled to bail. Accordingly, the bail was granted with standard conditions and directions for prompt release and trial completion.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a POCSO case given the alleged contradictions in evidence and alleged prior similar offence.
Whether the applicant's alleged lack of criminal history and the presence of consensual communications justify bail despite serious charges.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 137(2), 62, 65(1), 87
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 18, 3, 4

Subjects

bail
POCSO
false implication
victim statement contradictions
age of victim
criminal history
overcrowded jails
Supreme Court guidelines

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29557 of 2026

Abhishek
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home, U.P. At
Lucknow And 3 Others .....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Binod Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajendra Kumar, G.A.

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

1. Heard Shri Binod Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant,
Shri Ajendra Kumar, 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. 147 of 2026, under Sections 137(2),
87, 65(1), 62 of B.N.S. and Section 3/4/18 of POCSO Act, Police Station
Kotwali Dehat, District Etah, 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 victim
was recovered on the next day by her father, the first informant and the
medico legal report does not support the allegation of commission of rape on
her and the same has been conducted 2 days after the alleged incident. It is
further submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement of
the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS and the age of the
victim has been found to be 15-16 years as per ossification test and the
age of the victim has been found to be 15 years as per certificate of high
school. It is further submitted that the chats of the applicant and the victim
have been annexed with the memo of application, which shows that she
was in relationship with the applicant. It is further submitted that the
applicant is having no criminal history and the applicant has been
languishing in jail since 27.05.2026, in case, he is granted bail, he will not
BAIL No. 29557 of 2026
2

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 having criminal history of one case of similar
nature with the same victim and the testimony of the victim is going to be
recorded today itself.

5. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that subsequent to
the present case, another similar case has been lodged against the
applicant involving the same victim, in which, the applicant has been
granted bail by this Court.

6. As per first information report, the daughter of the first informant is
said to have been enticed away by the applicant and 2 other co-accused
persons, however, there are material contradictions in the statement of the
victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS and the age of the
victim has been found to be 15-16 years as per ossification test and the
age of the victim has been found to be 15 years as per certificate of high
school and no external injury has been found on her person. It is further
submitted that the chats of the applicant and the victim have been annexed
with the memo of application, which shows that she was in relationship
with the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is having no
criminal history and the applicant has been languishing in jail since
27.05.2026.

7. 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.
BAIL No. 29557 of 2026
3

8. Accordingly, the present application is ALLOWED.

9. Let the applicant- Abhishek 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.

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

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
Jail Superintendent, Etah 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.
BAIL No. 29557 of 2026
4

14. However, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as
expeditiously preferably within a period of one year.

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
September 24, 2026
RKM

Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…