Allahabad High Court
NITESH YADAV @ NIKESH YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail as the evidence is insufficient and the circumstances warrant release pending trial.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Nitesh Yadav, who was arrested in a rape case under Sections 64(2)(m) and 351(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 5(L) and 6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, that the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS did not mention rape, that the victim’s age was ambiguous (17‑18 years), and that the medico‑legal report did not support the allegation. The State argued that the FIR alleged rape by the applicant, who is the victim’s younger brother‑in‑law, and opposed bail. Relying on the lack of incriminating material, the applicant’s clean record, the principle of bail in the interest of justice, and recent Supreme Court guidelines on bail, the Court granted bail with standard conditions. The order directed verification of identities, issuance of the release order through the Bail Order Management System, and compliance with the Supreme Court’s policy on bail.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate exercise of discretion in granting bail for an alleged rape under the POCSO Act when evidentiary material is lacking?
- Does the absence of a specific date, victim’s statement of rape, and supporting medico‑legal report justify bail?
- Should jail overcrowding and pendency of cases influence the bail decision?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- POCSO
- false implication
- evidentiary insufficiency
- jail overcrowding
- trial pendency
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30675 of 2026
Nitesh Yadav @ Nikesh Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manvendra Narain Pathak
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on
record.
2. Heard Shri Manvendra Narain Pathak, 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.
3. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 254 of 2026, under Sections
64(2)(m), 351(2) of B.N.S. and Section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act, Police
Station Kotwali Deoria, District Deoria, during the pendency of the trial.
4. 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
mention of any date and time of the incident and the matter relates to some
matrimonial dispute and the applicant has been falsely implicated in this
case. It is further submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under
Section 183 BNSS has not stated anything regarding commission of rape on
her. It is further submitted that the age of the victim has been found to be 18
years as per ossification test and the age of the victim has been found to be
17 years as per certificate of high school. It is further submitted that the
medico legal report does not support the allegation of commission rape
on her. It is further submitted that the applicant is having no criminal
BAIL No. 30675 of 2026
2
history and the applicant has been languishing in jail since 25.06.2026, in
case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would
cooperate in the trial proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
6. As per first information report, the applicant is the younger brother-in-
law of the victim and is said to have committed rape on her and there is no
mention of any date and time of the alleged incident and the victim in her
statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS has not stated anything
regarding commission of rape on her. It is further submitted that the age of
the victim has been found to be 18 years as per ossification test and the age
of the victim has been found to be 17 years as per certificate of high school.
It is further submitted that the medico legal report does not support the
allegation of commission rape on her. It is further submitted that the
applicant is having no criminal history and the applicant has been
languishing in jail since 25.06.2026.
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.
8. Accordingly, the present application is ALLOWED.
9. Let the applicant- Nitesh Yadav @ Nikesh Yadav 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,
BAIL No. 30675 of 2026
3
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, Deoria 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 23, 2026
RKM
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…