Allahabad High Court
DINESH KUMARversusSTATE 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 Dinesh Kumar, who was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 137(2) and 65(1) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act, alleging rape of a minor girl aged 12 years and 4 months. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, pointing out contradictory victim statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S., the absence of a medical‑legal examination, and lack of reliable age proof. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged offence against a minor. The Court, while noting the contradictions, the lack of conclusive evidence, the applicant’s clean record, and the need to decongest prisons, relied on the Supreme Court precedents in Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI (2025) and Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P. (2024) to grant bail. The bail was ordered on personal bond with two sureties and subject to standard conditions, without expressing any view on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged under the POCSO Act and B.N.S. for alleged rape of a minor despite contradictory statements and lack of medical evidence.
- Whether the applicant’s clean criminal record and prison overcrowding justify bail in a serious offence.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- minor
- contradictory statements
- jail overcrowding
- Supreme Court precedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31634 of 2026
Dinesh Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sushil Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Shri Sushil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri
B.P. Maurya, 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. 848 of 2025, under Sections 137(2),
65(1) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station Dibai,
District Bulandshahr, 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 had left her home on her own free
will and had gone to Punjab alongwith the applicant, where physical
relationship was established between them, whereas, the victim in her
statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS has stated that the applicant
administered some intoxicating substance and committed rape on her and
he also forcibly married her. It is further submitted that the age of the
victim has been found to be 12 years and 4 months as per school records,
however, there is no mention of the class in which she was admitted to
that school and there is no certificate of high school or certificate of
BAIL No. 31634 of 2026
2
school first attended and no radio-logical examination has been conducted
for her age determination. It is further submitted that the victim has
refused to undergo medico legal examination. It is further submitted that
the applicant is having no criminal history and the applicant has been
languishing in jail since 07.01.2026, 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
12 years and 4 months as per school records.
5. The first information report has been lodged against unknown alleging
therein that the daughter of the first informant had gone missing on
10.12.2025 and the first information report has been lodged on
14.12.2025, however, 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 had
left her home on her own free will and had gone to Punjab alongwith the
applicant, where physical relationship was established between them,
whereas, the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS
has stated that the applicant administered some intoxicating substance and
committed rape on her and he also forcibly married her. It is further
submitted that the age of the victim has been found to be 12 years and 4
months as per school records, however, there is no mention of the class in
which she was admitted to that school and there is no certificate of high
school or certificate of school first attended and no radio-logical
examination has been conducted for her age determination. It is further
submitted that the victim has refused to undergo medico legal
examination. It is further submitted that the applicant is having no
criminal history and the applicant has been languishing in jail since
07.01.2026.
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
BAIL No. 31634 of 2026
3
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.
7. Accordingly, the present application is ALLOWED.
8. Let the applicant- Dinesh Kumar 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.
BAIL No. 31634 of 2026
4
12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
Jail Superintendent, Bulandshahr 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 30, 2026
RKM
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…