Allahabad High Court
DEEPCHANDversusSTATE 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 Deepchand, who was arrested in connection with a case (Crim No. 188 of 2026) alleging rape of a minor under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)m, 351(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 5j(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed false implication, pointing to contradictory statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S. and the victim's refusal to undergo a medico‑legal examination. The prosecution highlighted the victim's minor age (approximately 16 years) and her pregnancy, arguing that the seriousness of the offence warranted continued detention. The Court, while noting the lack of conclusive incriminating material, the applicant's clean record, and the broader concerns of jail overcrowding, applied the principles laid down in Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI (2025) and Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P. (2024). Consequently, the Court granted bail with standard conditions, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying charges.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with rape of a minor under the POCSO Act and related provisions of the B.N.S.
- Whether the contradictions in the victim's statements and lack of medico‑legal evidence justify release on bail
- Whether considerations of jail overcrowding and the applicant's clean record outweigh the seriousness of the alleged offence
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- minor
- rape
- contradictory statements
- jail overcrowding
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30932 of 2026
Deepchand
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rayoof Ali
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Surendra Kumar Tiwari
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Shri Rayoof Ali, learned counsel for the applicant, Surendra
Kumar Tiwari, 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. 188 of 2026, under Sections 137(2),
87, 64(2)m, 351(2) of B.N.S. and Section 5j(ii)/6 of POCSO Act, Police
Station Lalganj, District Basti, 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 there are
material contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under
Sections 180 and 183 BNSS as the victim in her statement recorded under
Section 180 BNSS has stated that she had left her home on her own free
will and she had gone along with the applicant, whereas, the victim in her
statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS has stated that she had left
her home on her own free will and the applicant committed rape on her. It
is further submitted that the age of the victim has been found to be 16-17
years as per radio-logical examination and the age of the victim has been
found to be 16 years and 3 months as per educational records of Class IV,
however, there is no certificate of high school or certificate of school first
attended and the victim has refused to undergo medico legal
examination. It is further submitted that the applicant is having no
BAIL No. 30932 of 2026
2
criminal history and the applicant has been languishing in jail since
21.07.2026, in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of
bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for he first informant and leaned A.G.A.
have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted by
them that the victim is a minor girl aged about 16 years and 3 months as
per educational records of Class IV and the age of the victim has been
found to be 16-17 years as per radio-logical examination and she is
pregnant of five weeks.
5. As per first information report, the alleged incident is said to have
taken place on 29.06.2026 and the first information report has been
lodged on 06.07.2026 alleging therein that the applicant is said to have
enticed away the daughter of the first informant, however, the victim has
been recovered and there are material contradictions in the statement of
the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS as the victim in
her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS has stated that she had
left her home on her own free will and she had gone along-with the
applicant, whereas, the victim in her statement recorded under Section
183 BNSS has stated that she had left her home on her own free will and
the applicant committed rape on her and the applicant is already a married
person. It is further submitted that the age of the victim has been found to
be 16-17 years as per radio-logical examination and the age of the victim
has been found to be 16 years and 3 months as per certificate of Class IV,
however, there is no certificate of high school or certificate of school first
attended and the victim has refused to undergo medico legal
examination. It is further submitted that the applicant is having no
criminal history and the applicant has been languishing in jail since
21.07.2026.
6. 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
BAIL No. 30932 of 2026
3
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- Deepchand 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.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. 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.
11. 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. 30932 of 2026
4
12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
Jail Superintendent, Basti 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 24, 2026
RKM
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…