Allahabad High Court
ANURAGversusSTATE OF UP AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail and allowed the bail application.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Anurag, who was arrested in a case registered under Section 70(2) of the BNSS and Sections 5G/6 of the POCSO Act for alleged rape of a minor. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, pointing out contradictions between the victim's statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS and the absence of any corroborating medical evidence. The State argued that the victim, a girl of about 13 years, had consistently accused the applicant of rape. The Court, while noting the seriousness of the offence, also considered the lack of incriminating material, the applicant’s clean record, the overcrowding of jails, and recent Supreme Court guidelines on bail. Relying on the judgments of Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI, Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P., and the policy strategy for grant of bail, the Court decided that bail could be granted without expressing an opinion on the merits. Accordingly, the applicant was released on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and several conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused in a POCSO rape case despite the seriousness of the alleged offence
- Whether contradictions in the victim's statements and lack of medical evidence justify bail
- Whether the applicant's clean criminal record and jail overcrowding influence the bail decision
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- minor
- POCSO
- contradictory statements
- medical evidence
- overcrowded jails
- Supreme Court guidelines
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31000 of 2026
Anurag
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kamal Kishor Mishra, Kavita Nishad,
Sanjeev Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Shri Kamal Kishor Mishra, 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.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 275 of 2026, under Sections 70(2) of
B.N.S. and Section 5G/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Pipiganj, District
Gorakhpur, 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 has not named co-accused Om
Prakash and she has not stated anything against him, whereas, the victim
in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS has stated that co-
accused Om Prakash shut her mouth and the applicant committed rape on
her and the medico legal report does not support the allegation of
commission of rape on her and no external or internal injury has been
found on her person. It is further submitted that the age of the victim has
been found to be 13 years as per school records of Class VII and as per
statement of the victim, she is aged about 15 years and no radio-logical
BAIL No. 31000 of 2026
2
examination has been conducted for her age determination. It is further
submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history and the
applicant has been languishing in jail since 24.07.2026, 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 A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail
and it has been submitted by him that the victim is a minor girl aged about
13 years as per school records of Class VII and the victim in her statement
recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS has stated that the applicant
committed rape on her.
5. As per first information report, the applicant and co-accused are 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 not named co-
accused Om Prakash and she has not stated anything against him,
whereas, the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS
has stated that co-accused Om Prakash shut her mouth and the applicant
committed rape on her and the medico legal report does not support the
allegation of commission of rape on her and no external or internal injury
has been found on her person. It is further submitted that the age of the
victim has been found to be 13 years as per school records of Class VII
and as per statement of the victim, she is aged about 15 years and no
radio-logical examination has been conducted for her age determination.
It is further submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history and
the applicant has been languishing in jail since 24.07.2026.
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
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
BAIL No. 31000 of 2026
3
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- Anurag 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.
12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
Jail Superintendent, Gorakhpur via e-mail or e-prison portal within 24
BAIL No. 31000 of 2026
4
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…