Allahabad High Court

AMIT RAJBHARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 16 September 2026
Bench: YOGESH DUBEY JOINT REGISTRAR JUDICIAL

Holding

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail in the present case.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Amit Rajbhar, who was charged under Sections 87, 137(2), 65(1) of the same Act and Sections 5L/6 of the POCSO Act for alleged sexual offences against a 13‑year‑old girl. The applicant claimed false implication, pointing to contradictory statements by the victim under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNS and the absence of any injury in the medico‑legal report. The State argued that the minor victim had alleged non‑consensual intercourse and that the applicant had enticed her away. The Court, after reviewing the record, noted the contradictions, lack of medical evidence, the applicant’s clean record and the long pendency of cases, and concluded that the case was fit for bail without expressing a view on the merits. Accordingly, bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and a set of conditions, with a warning that breach would lead to cancellation.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for offences involving a minor under the POCSO Act.
Whether contradictions in the victim’s statements and the absence of medico‑legal evidence justify the grant of bail.
Whether the applicant’s lack of prior criminal record and the pendency of trial warrant bail despite the seriousness of the alleged offences.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 180, 183, 483, 65(1), 87
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 5L, 6

Subjects

bail
minor
POCSO Act
contradictory statements
medico‑legal report
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
criminal procedure
Section 483
bail conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30937 of 2026

Amit Rajbhar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Savita
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Savita, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiv
Dutt Shukla, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. 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. 205 of 2026 under Sections 87,
137(2), 65(1) BNS, 5L/6 POCSO Act registered at Police Station Atrauliya,
District Azamgarh during pendency of the trial.

3. At the very outset, learned A.G.A. states that notice has been served upon
the first informant.

4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case and there are material
contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded under sections 180
and 183 BNSS. It is further submitted that age of the victim has been found
to be 13 years as per certificate of class IVth, however, there is no certificate
of High School or school first attended and no radiological examination has
been conducted for determination of her age. It is further submitted that
medico-legal report of the victim does not support the allegation of rape on
her. It is further submitted that applicant, who has no criminal history, has
been languishing in jail since 04.6.2026 and he undertakes that he will not
misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of
heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early
conclusion of trial.
BAIL No. 30937 of 2026
2

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail to
the applicant and submits that victim is a minor girl aged about 13 years as
per certificate of class IVth and she has stated in her statements recorded
under sections 180 and 183 BNSS that applicant enticed her away and
established physical relationship with her without her consent.

6. As per the FIR, applicant is said to have enticed away the daughter of the
first informant aged about 13 years, however, she has been recovered. There
appears to be material contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded
under sections 180 and 183 BNSS as she has stated in her statement under
section 180 BNSS that the applicant enticed her away and established
physical relationship with her without her consent whereas in her statement
under section 183 BNSS she has stated that she was in love with the
applicant for the last five years and she left her home on earlier occasion and
physical relationship was established between them. However, on the
alleged date of occurrence, applicant took her to an agricultural field where
he established physical relationship with her on her consent. Medico-legal
report of the victim does not support the allegation of rape on her as no
injury has been found on her private part. The victim has been found to be
aged about 13 years as per certificate of class IVth, however, there is no
certificate of High School or school first attended and no radiological
examination has been conducted for determination of her age. Applicant,
who has no criminal history, has been languishing in jail since 04.6.2026.

7. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected
from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find
it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED.

8. Let the applicant Amit Rajbhar involved in the aforesaid case crime be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with 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.
BAIL No. 30937 of 2026
3

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)
recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek
any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are
present in the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

10. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of
determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free
to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led
unaffected by anything said in this order.

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
September 17, 2026
Madhurima

Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…