Allahabad High Court
RAJENDRAversusSTATE 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 under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for Rajendra, who is charged with offences under Sections 65(1) and 351(2) of the same Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act for an alleged rape of a 13‑year‑old girl. The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged ten days after the incident, the medico‑legal report did not support a rape, and he has no prior criminal record, while the State highlighted the seriousness of the offence and the victim’s minority. The court examined the delay, the lack of supporting medical evidence, the applicant’s clean record, and the need to decongest prisons, referring to recent Supreme Court decisions on bail. Without expressing a view on the merits, the court concluded that the applicant is entitled to bail, subject to strict conditions. The order directed verification of identities, issuance of a personal bond with sureties, and compliance with procedural directives for early release.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the inconclusive medico‑legal report justify denial of bail.
- Whether the gravity of the alleged rape of a minor under the POCSO Act mandates denial of bail.
- Whether the applicant’s lack of criminal history and the problem of jail overcrowding warrant the grant of bail.
- Whether the Supreme Court precedents on bail (Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI, Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P., and the Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail) are applicable to this case.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 351(2), 483, 65(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- minor
- POCSO Act
- delay in FIR
- overcrowded prisons
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29679 of 2026
Rajendra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankit Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashutosh Shukla, G.A., Siblu Panday
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Ankit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Kumar Jagdish,
Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ashutosh Shukla, learned counsel for the first
informant, Sri Ashish Kumar Tripathi, learned AGA for the State-respondents and
perused the record.
3. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on
bail in Case Crime No. 154 of 2026 under Sections 65(1), 351(2) BNS and 3/4
POCSO Act registered at Police Station Kotwali Sadabad, District Hathras during
pendency of the trial.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that FIR has been lodged after
delay of ten days and medico-legal report of the victim does not support commission
of rape on her and statement of the victim under section 183 BNSS has been recorded
after eleven days of the registration of FIR. It is next submitted that one day after the
alleged incident, a complaint was lodged by the wife of the applicant addressing to the
Hon'ble Chief Minister alleging that family members of the victim entered into her
house and consumed liquor and when she objected, they threatened her. It is next
submitted that on account of the said incident, FIR has been lodged one day prior to
the date of lodging of the complaint. It is also submitted that applicant, who has no
criminal history, has been languishing in jail since 23.4.2026. It is lastly submitted that
in case applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would
cooperate in the trial proceedings.
5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the first informant
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submit that the victim is a
minor girl aged about 13 years as per certificate of school first attended and the delay
in lodging in the FIR cannot be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution story. It is next
BAIL No. 29679 of 2026
2
submitted that since the incident is old, therefore, the same is not supported by the
medico-legal report. It is next submitted that there is no receipt of the complaint
lodged by the wife of the applicant to the Hon'ble Chief Minister.
6. Learned AGA also opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits
that since medico-legal examination has been conducted after ten days of the incident,
therefore, the same does not support commission of rape on the victim. He further
submits that the victim is a minor girl aged about 13 years as per certificate of school
first attended.
7. As per the FIR, applicant is said to have committed rape on the victim aged about
13 years on 08.4.2026 whereas FIR was lodged on 18.4.2026 and the medico-legal
examination was also conducted on 18.4.2026 which does not support commission of
rape on her. The victim is aged about 13 years as per certificate of school first
attended. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that on 09.4.2026,
wife of the applicant had lodged a complaint addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister
alleging therein that some of the family members of the victim entered her house and
consumed liquor and when she objected to it, they threatened her. However, there is
no proof or receipt of the said complaint. Applicant, who has no criminal history, has
been languishing in jail since 23.4.2026.
8. 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.
9. Let the applicant Rajendra 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.
BAIL No. 29679 of 2026
3
(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 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.
October 1, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…