Allahabad High Court

ARSHAD ALIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

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

Holding

The court allowed the bail application, granting bail to the accused.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Arshad Ali, who was charged with offences including rape under the POCSO Act, offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and several provisions of the B.N.S.S. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, that the victim's statements under sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S. were contradictory, the medico‑legal report did not support a rape allegation, and that the victim's age could not be conclusively established. The State opposed bail, contending that the victim alleged the applicant tried to convert her religion and that the age issue remained unresolved. The court noted that co‑accused had already been granted bail, the applicant had no prior criminal record, and the evidence raised reasonable doubt about the strength of the prosecution case. Without passing on the merits, the judge held that the case was suitable for bail and ordered the applicant’s release on a personal bond with conditions. The order expressly limited its effect to the bail application and did not prejudice the trial court’s future findings.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in view of the serious nature of the charges.
Whether contradictions in the victim's statements and the lack of conclusive age determination affect the bail decision.
Whether the applicant’s non‑inclusion in the FIR and the prior grant of bail to co‑accused influence the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 137(2), 180, 183, 351(3), 352, 483, 70(2), 87
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5(g), 6
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(V)

Subjects

bail
rape
POCSO
age of victim
contradictory statements
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30953 of 2026

Arshad Ali
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vikrant Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Vikrant Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Uma
Shankar Mishra, 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. 61 of 2025 under Sections 87,
137(2), 70(2), 115(2), 351(3), 352 BNS, 5(g)/6 POCSO Act and 3(2)(V)
S.C./S.T. Act registered at Police Station Sahayal, District Auraiya 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 co-accused Bhuri @ Vikas
and Shivjeet @ Sujeet Kumar have already been granted bail by Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court. It is further submitted that there are material
contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded under sections 180
and 183 BNSS and her medico-legal report does not support the allegation of
rape on her. It is further submitted that age of the victim has been found to
be 16 years and 8 months as per certificate of primary school, 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 applicant, who has no criminal history, has been languishing
BAIL No. 30953 of 2026
2

in jail since 11.6.2025 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. It is
further submitted that the

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail to
the applicant and submits that victim in her statements under sections 180
and 183 BNSS has stated that applicant exerted pressure on her to convert
her religion from Hinduism to Islam. He further submits that victim is minor
as per certificate of primary school, however, it is not disputed that there is
no certificate of High School or school first attended and no radiological
examination has been conducted for determination of her age.

6. Applicant is not named in the FIR as per which, co-accused Shivjeet is
said to have enticed away the victim aged about 15 years and 8 months,
however, she was recovered. There appears to be material contradictions in
the statements of the victim recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS and
medico-legal report of the victim does not support the allegation of rape on
her. The victim has been found to be aged about 16 years and 8 months as
per certificate of primary school, however, there is no certificate of High
School or school first attended and no radiological examination has been
conducted for determination of her age. Co-accused Bhuri @ Vikas and
Shivjeet @ Sujeet Kumar have already been granted bail by Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court and the applicant, who has no criminal history, has been
languishing in jail since 11.6.2025.

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 Arshad Ali 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
BAIL No. 30953 of 2026
3

or tamper with the evidence.

(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…