Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

KANHAIYA KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Kanhaiya Kumar under Section 5(J)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act, alleging false implication and noting that he had already been granted bail for other offences. The State opposed the bail, but the court examined the nature of the offence, the evidence, the applicant's prior bail, and the issue of jail overcrowding. It also referred to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI (2025) and the Allahabad High Court’s own precedent in Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P. (2024) on bail grants. Without expressing an opinion on the merits, the court concluded that the applicant was entitled to bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, releasing the applicant on the same terms as his earlier bail order.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted for the additional charge under Section 5(J)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act during the pendency of trial
  • Whether the applicant's claim of false implication and prior bail for other offences affect the bail decision

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • POCSO Act
  • false implication
  • jail overcrowding
  • precedent
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
         CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30282 of 2026

Kanhaiya Kumar
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                 :   Yashwant Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)            :   G.A.

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

1. Heard Shri Yashwant Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and
Shri Radhey Shyam, 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. 388 of 2025, under Section 5(J)(ii)/6 of
POCSO Act, Police Station Kaptanganj, District Kushinagar, 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 applicant has already
been granted bail in the present case for the offences under Sections 137(2),
87, 64(1) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, however, during
investigation Section 5(J)(ii)/6 of POCSO Act has been added.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

5. The applicant has already been granted bail in the present case for the
offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of
POCSO Act, however, during investigation Section 5(J)(ii)/6 of POCSO Act
has been added.

6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of
                                                                                               BAIL No. 30282 of 2026
                                                                     2


                                    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- Kanhaiya Kumar involved in the aforementioned
                                    crime be released on bail, on bail on the same terms and conditions, on
                                    which, the applicant was granted bail by this Court vide order dated
                                    06.07.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.19604 of 2026.



                                                                                      (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    RKM




Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
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.