Allahabad High Court
KSHITIJ RASTONGI @ PRASHANTversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for Kshitij Rastongi, who is charged with offences under IPC sections 65(1), 64(2)(F), 64(2)(M), 357(2) and under the POCSO Act. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, pointing to contradictions between his statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, the absence of medical corroboration of rape, and the lack of any video or photographic evidence. The State highlighted that the alleged victim is a minor of about 13 years who has accused the applicant of rape. The Court, taking note of overcrowded jails, pendency of cases and the precedents set in Kapil Wadhawan and Maya Tiwari, decided to grant bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The order released the applicant on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties and conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and to ensure cooperation with the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 despite serious charges under the IPC and POCSO Act
- Whether the contradictions in the victim's statements and the lack of medical or forensic evidence justify granting bail
- Whether the minor status of the victim precludes the grant of bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Indian Penal Code — s. 357(2), 64(2)(F), 64(2)(M), 65(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 4(2), 5(L), 6
Subjects
- bail
- minor
- POCSO
- contradictory statements
- overcrowded jails
- section 483
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- IPC
- sexual assault
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31066 of 2026
Kshitij Rastongi @ Prashant
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Himanshu Giri, Vaibhav Goswami
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Vaibhav Goswami 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. 271 of 2026 under Sections 65(1), 64(2)(F), 64(2)(M) 357(2)
BNS and 4(2), 5(L)/6 POCSO Act registered at Police Station Kotwali, District
Bareilly 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 is contended 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 as she has not stated anything
regarding commission of sexual assault on her and has stated that applicant sexually
harassed and outraged her modesty whereas in her statement under Section 183 BNSS,
she has stated that applicant committed rape on her. It is next submitted that the victim
has stated in her statement under section 183 BNSS that when the applicant committed
rape on her, one Aryan saw the incident, however, the said Aryan has stated that he
did not witness the incident. It is further submitted that medico-legal report of the
victim does not support commission of rape on her. It is also submitted that applicant,
who has no criminal history, has been languishing in jail since 17.6.2026. It is lastly
submitted that in case applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail
and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
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 5 months as per
her school records and she has stated in her statement recorded under section 183
BNSS that applicant committed rape on her.
BAIL No. 31066 of 2026
2
6. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the class in which the victim
was studying is not mentioned in the said school record.
7. As per the FIR, applicant is said to have committed rape on the victim aged about
13 years and he is also said to have recorded obscene/nude videos. There appears to be
material contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180
and 183 BNSS as she has not stated anything regarding commission of sexual assault
on her and has only stated that applicant sexually harassed and outraged her
modesty whereas in her statement under Section 183 BNSS, she has stated that
applicant committed rape on her. The victim is aged about 13 years 5 months as per
school records, however, the class in which victim was studying is not mentioned in
the said school record and her medico-legal report does not support commission of
rape on her. No photograph or video as alleged has been recovered during
investigation. Applicant, who has no criminal history, has been languishing in jail
since 17.6.2026.
8. 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 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.
9. Let the applicant Kshitij Rastongi @ Prashant 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
BAIL No. 31066 of 2026
3
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.
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
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…