Allahabad High Court
PRADEEP DHIMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Pradeep Dhimar, who was charged in Crime No. 162 of 2025 under Sections 64(1), 87, 137(2), 351(3) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed false implication, pointing to contradictory victim statements and conflicting age determinations (16 years by ossification test versus 13 years 10 months by school records), and a medico‑legal report that did not support rape. The State argued that the victim was a minor and the seriousness of the offences warranted denial of bail. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI, Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P., and the Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail) and the need to decongest prisons, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail without expressing a view on the merits. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to standard bond conditions and verification of identities.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant, accused of offences under the B.N.S. and POCSO Act, is entitled to bail despite the alleged seriousness of the crimes and the victim being a minor.
- Whether the contradictions in the victim's statements and the disputed age affect the bail decision.
- Whether the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in recent bail jurisprudence apply to this case.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 137(2), 351(3), 64(1), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 3/4(2)
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- minor victim
- contradictory statements
- overcrowded prisons
- Supreme Court bail guidelines
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31646 of 2026
Pradeep Dhimar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bhaskar Bhadra, Rajveer Chaurasiya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Shri Rajveer Chaurasiya, learned counsel for the applicant and
Shri Ashish Kumar Tripathi, 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. 162 of 2025, under Sections 64(1),
87, 137(2), 351(3) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, Police
Station Srinagar, District Mahoba, 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 along-with the applicant and lived with the applicant
for one month and 10-12 days and physical relationship was established
between them, whereas, the victim in her statement recorded under
Section 183 BNSS has stated that she had left her home on her own free
will and had gone alongwith the applicant, where, the applicant where the
applicant established physical relationship without her consent. It is
further submitted that the age of the victim has been found to be 16 years
as per ossification test and the age of the victim has been found to be 13
BAIL No. 31646 of 2026
2
years and 10 months as per school records of Class V, however, there is
no certificate of high school or certificate of school first attended. It is
further submitted that the medico legal report does not support the
allegation of commission rape on her. It is further submitted that the
applicant is having no criminal history and the applicant has been
languishing in jail since 02.10.2025, 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
13 years and 10 months as per school records of Class V and the age of
the victim has been found to be 16 years as per ossification test.
5. As per first information report, the daughter of the first informant had
gone msising, however, the victim has been recovered and 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 along-with the applicant and lived with the applicant
for one month and 10-12 days and physical relationship was established
between them, whereas, the victim in her statement recorded under
Section 183 BNSS has stated that she had left her home on her own free
will and had gone along-with the applicant, where, the applicant where
the applicant established physical relationship without her consent. It is
further submitted that the age of the victim has been found to be 16 years
as per ossification test and the age of the victim has been found to be 13
years and 10 months as per school records of Class V, however, there is
no certificate of high school or certificate of school first attended. It is
further submitted that the medico legal report does not support the
allegation of commission rape on her. It is further submitted that the
applicant is having no criminal history and the applicant has been
languishing in jail since 02.10.2025.
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
BAIL No. 31646 of 2026
3
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.
7. Accordingly, the present application is ALLOWED.
8. Let the applicant- Pradeep Dhimar 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
BAIL No. 31646 of 2026
4
ensure early release of the applicant.
12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
Jail Superintendent, Mahoba 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…