Allahabad High Court
SIKANDAR ANSARIversusSTATE 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 Sikandar Ansari, who was arrested in connection with Crime No. 359 of 2026 under Sections 137(2), 84, 64, 351(3) of the BNS and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated, argued that the victim, a minor, had allegedly consented and that the medico‑legal report did not support a rape charge, while the prosecution highlighted the victim's minority and the seriousness of the alleged offences. The court examined the evidence, the applicant’s lack of prior criminal history, the overcrowding of jails, and recent Supreme Court pronouncements on bail. Relying on the judgments in Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI (2025) and Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P. (2024), the court decided that the applicant was entitled to bail, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case. Bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or further criminal conduct.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged under the POCSO Act and other sections of the BNS despite the alleged sexual offence involving a minor.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
- Whether the applicant’s lack of prior criminal record and the state of jail overcrowding justify bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 137(2), 351(3), 64, 84
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 5, 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- minor
- rape
- criminal procedure
- overcrowded jails
- bail conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31076 of 2026
Sikandar Ansari
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manish Mani, Vishveshwar Mani
Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Sameer Tiwari, holding brief of Sri Vishveshwar Mani
Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Radhey Shyam, 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. 359 of 2026, under Sections 137(2),
84, 64, 351(3) of BNS and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station
Kotwali Hata, District Kushinagar, during the pendency of the trial.
3. At the very outset, learned AGA submits that notice has been served on
the first informant.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and on perusal of
the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, it
appears that she is a consenting party and she had left her home and had
gone to Mumbai with the applicant and remained there for 90 days and
the applicant established physical relationship with her without her
consent. It is further submitted that the age of the victim has been found
to be 17 years as per ossification test, 16 years as per FIR and 15 years as
per certificate of Class 7th, however, there is no High School certificate
or the certificate of school first attended. It is further submitted that the
medico-legal report of the victim does not support the commission of rape
on her. It is also submitted that the applicant has been languishing in jail
BAIL No. 31076 of 2026
2
since 18.7.2026 and he is having no criminal history. It is lastly submitted
that in case the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of
bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail,
however, it is submitted that the the victim is a minor girl aged about 17
years as per ossification test and 15 years as per certificate of Class 7th.
6. As per the allegation in the FIR, the applicant is said to have enticed
away the daughter of the first informant aged about 16 years, however,
the victim has been recovered and victim in her statement recorded under
Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, she has stated that she was in contact with
the applicant and she had left her home and had gone to Mumbai with the
applicant and remained there for 90 days and the applicant established
physical relationship with her without her consent. The age of the victim
has been found to be 17 years as per ossification test and 15 years as per
certificate of Class 7th, however, there is no High School certificate or
the certificate of school first attended. The medico-legal report of the
victim does not support the commission of rape on her. The applicant has
been languishing in jail since 18.7.2026 and he is having no criminal
history.
7. 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.
8. Accordingly, the present application is ALLOWED.
9. Let the applicant- Sikandar Ansari involved in the aforementioned
crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two
BAIL No. 31076 of 2026
3
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 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.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
September 18, 2026
Abhishek
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…