Allahabad High Court

SANDEEPversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 30 September 2026
Bench: YOGESH DUBEY JOINT REGISTRAR JUDICIAL

Holding

The applicant is entitled to bail pending trial.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Sandeep, who was arrested in a POCSO rape case involving a 16‑year‑old girl who allegedly consented and became pregnant. The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged after a nine‑month delay, that the victim’s age was not medically verified, and that he had been falsely implicated, noting his prior bail in three other cases. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the minor status of the victim and the seriousness of the alleged rape. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Kapil Wadhawan v CBI, Maya Tiwari v State) and the policy on bail, the court held that the applicant was entitled to bail despite the gravity of the offence. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence, further offences, and ensuring cooperation with trial proceedings.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted to an accused in a POCSO offence where the victim is a minor and alleged consent is claimed.
Whether the delay in filing the FIR and lack of medical age verification justify bail.
Whether the applicant’s prior criminal history precludes bail under Sections 64(1) and 61(2) of the CrPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 61(2), 64(1)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 180, 183
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 16, 17, 5J(ii), 6

Subjects

bail
POCSO
rape
minor
consent
delay in FIR
Criminal Procedure Code
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30912 of 2026

Sandeep
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Shahibe Alam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. List revised. Heard Mohd. Shahibe Alam, learned counsel for the
applicant and Sri O.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. At the very outset, learned AGA submits that notice ha 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. 350 of 2026, under
Sections 64(1), 61(2) BNS and Sections 5J(ii), 6, 16/17 of POCSO
Act, Police Station Kankarkheda, District Meerut, during the
pendency of the trial.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and FIR
has been lodged after a delay of nine months and on perusal of the
statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183
BNSS, it appears that she is a consenting party and the victim in
her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS has stated
that she was in love with the applicant. It is further submitted that
the age of the victim has been found to be 16 years as per FIR as
well as as per statement of the victim and 16 years as per school
record of Class 2nd, however, there is no High School certificate or
the certificate of school first attended and no radio-logical
BAIL No. 30912 of 2026
2

examination of the victim has been conducted for her age
determination. It is further submitted that as per statement of the
victim she has been found pregnant. It is also submitted that the
applicant has been languishing in jail since 29.4.2026 and he is
having criminal history of three cases in which he is on bail in all
the cases. It is lastly submitted that in case the applicant 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 but could not dispute the aforesaid facts, however, it is
submitted that the victim is a minor girl aged about 16 years as per
school record of Class 2nd and the applicant committed rape on
the victim as a result of which she became pregnant.

6. As per the allegation in the FIR, the applicant is said to have
committed rape on the victim aged about 16 years and the victim
became pregnant, however, it is submitted that on perusal of the
statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183
BNSS, it appears that she is a consenting party and the victim in
her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS has stated
that she was in love with the applicant. The age of the victim has
been found to be 16 years as per school record of Class 2nd,
however, there is no High School certificate or the certificate of
school first attended and no radio-logical examination of the victim
has been conducted for her age determination. The applicant has
been languishing in jail since 29.4.2026 and he is having criminal
history of three cases in which he is on bail in all the cases.

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
BAIL No. 30912 of 2026
3

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- Sandeep 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.
BAIL No. 30912 of 2026
4

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
Abhishek

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…