Allahabad High Court

CHHOTU @ RAJENDRA KUMARversusState of UP AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 16 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The bail application is rejected.

Summary

The applicant, Chhotu @ Rajendra Kumar, sought bail in a case (Crime No. 61 of 2024) involving charges under IPC sections 307, 376(3), 506 and sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that the applicant committed rape of a minor, supported by the victim's statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., a medical report, and school records confirming the victim's age. The applicant claimed false implication and no prior criminal record, assuring cooperation with the trial. The court examined the evidence, found the allegations credible and the offence grave, and concluded that the case was not suitable for bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, and the trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings without unnecessary adjournments.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused in offences of murder, gang rape, criminal intimidation and POCSO offences given the seriousness of the charges and the evidence.
Whether the presence of a minor victim and corroborative medical and testimonial evidence makes the case unfit for bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161, 164
Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 376(3), 506
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 5, 6

Subjects

bail
IPC
POCSO
rape
minor
medical report
evidence
trial acceleration

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31408 of 2024

Chhotu @ Rajendra Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of Up And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Devi Prasad Tripathi, Manish Kumar
Pandey, Manvendra Singh, Nirma
Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Gunjan Sharma, Shiv Karan
Chaudhary

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard Sri J.P. Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Nirma Mishra,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manoj Gautam, learned A.G.A. for
the State and Sri S.K. Chaudhary, counsel for the informant. Perused the
record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge
the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 61 of 2024, under Sections 307,
376(3), 506 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Bindki,
District Fatehpur during the pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is in jail since
2.3.2024 and has no criminal history. In case, the applicant is enlarged on
bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial.

4. Per contra, learned AGA for the State and counsel for the informant
have opposed the prayer for bail.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
record, this Court prima facie finds that as per the allegations contained in
the first information report, a specific role of committing rape upon the
victim has been assigned to the applicant. The victim, in her statements
recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has supported the
prosecution version. The medical report of Dr. Laxmi Singh, CHC
BAIL No. 31408 of 2024
2

Bindki, Fatehpur dated 1.3.2024 also lends corroboration to the
prosecution case. As per the school records and statement of the principal
of Prathmic Vidyalaya Joniha, Khajuha, Fatehpur the victim was a minor
on the alleged date of occurrence. Further, during the course of trial, the
victim in her testimony, remained consistent with the prosecution version
and categorically stated that the applicant had committed rape upon her.
The offence is grave. There is likelihood that the applicant has committed
the offence.

6. Considering the gravity of the offence medical report dated 1.3.2024,
age of the victim and the material available on record, in my opinion, this
is not a fit case for grant of bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

8. However, considering the period of incarceration of the applicant, the
trial court is directed to expedite the proceedings and conclude the same
at the earliest without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of
the parties.

9. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned for
information.

(Vivek Varma,J.)
September 17, 2026
S.S.

Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…