Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

RINKU @ RAHULversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided

Holding

The Court held that the inconsistency in the victim's statements entitled the accused to be released on bail.

Summary

The accused Rinku @ Rahul was arrested in connection with an FIR dated 21.07.2026 alleging enticement of a 17‑year‑old girl, a charge filed by the victim's father. The victim’s statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Criminal Procedure Code were found to be inconsistent, and the accused had no prior criminal record. The applicant sought bail during the pendency of trial, arguing false implication and cooperation with the investigation. The State opposed the bail, but the Court, after considering the inconsistency in the victim’s statements, granted bail without addressing the merits of the case. The bail was conditioned on a personal bond and two sureties, following Supreme Court precedents on bail policy.

Issues considered

  • Whether the inconsistency in the victim's statements under Sections 180 and 183 CrPC warrants the grant of bail to the accused.
  • Whether the seriousness of the alleged offences under Sections 137(2), 87 and 351(2) of the IPC/CrPC precludes bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • victim statement inconsistency
  • minor
  • enticement
  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • Indian Penal Code
  • pre‑trial detention

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
         CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31508 of 2026

Rinku @ Rahul
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P.
                                                              .....Opposite
                                                                    Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)            :   Ankit Kumar Pal, Shad Azam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)       :   G.A.

Court No. - 69
                    HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

1. Sri Jagmohan Singh, learned counsel for informant hands up
Vakalatnama, the same is taken on record.

1A. Heard Sri Ankit Kumar Pal, learned counsel for accused applicant,
Sri Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for State.

2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant accused-
Rinku @ Rahul to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 223 of 2026,
under Sections 137(2), 87, 351(2) BNS, P.S.- Kamalganj, District-
Farrukhabad, during the pendency of trial.

3. It is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that the accused
applicant has been falsely implicated in belated FIR dated 21.07.2026
lodged by father of the victim with the allegation for enticement of his
daughter aged about 17 years, when she went to attend the call of nature,
against four persons including the accused applicant. In the statement of
victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, she specifically stated
about the relations between the two. The accused applicant has only taken
the victim to various places. There was no physical relation between the
two. It is the contention of learned counsel that there is inconsistency in
the statement of victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS. The
applicant has no criminal history. The investigation is continuing and the
applicant is co-operating in the investigation. The accused applicant is
languishing in jail since 29.07.2026. He seeks enlargement of accused on
bail.
                                                                                          BAIL No. 31508 of 2026
                                                                  2


                                    4. Learned counsel for informant and learned A.G.A. for State opposed
                                    the bail application.

                                    5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
                                    learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

                                    6. Considering the inconsistency in the statement of victim recorded
                                    under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, the accused/applicant is entitled to be
                                    released on bail.

                                    7. Hence, without touching merit of the case, the bail application is
                                    allowed.

                                    8. The accused/applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case on
                                    furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
                                    satisfaction of court concerned in view of observation made by the
                                    Supreme Court in its dictums of Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Uttar
                                    Pradesh [(2024) 10 SCC 674] and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in
                                    re [(2024)10SCC 685].

                                    9. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and
                                    speedy disposal.



                                                                                          (Avnish Saxena,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Sharad/-




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

Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.