Allahabad High Court

RAJESH BINDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 29 September 2026
Bench: YOGESH DUBEY JOINT REGISTRAR JUDICIAL

Holding

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Rajesh Bind, who was charged under Sections 64(2)m and 64(2)h of the B.N.S., Sections 5j(ii), 5(q) and 6 of the POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act for alleged rape of a minor. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, highlighted contradictory victim statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S., and pointed out a dispute over the victim's age—17 years 6 months per school records versus 18‑19 years per ossification test. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the victim’s minority status and the seriousness of the offence. The Court, noting the lack of incriminating material, the applicant’s clean record, the prolonged pre‑trial detention, and the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Kapil Wadhawan (2025) and Maya Tiwari (2024), decided to grant bail without passing on the merits. Bail was ordered on the condition of a personal bond, two sureties, and compliance with standard bail conditions. The order also directed verification of identity documents and prompt transmission of the release order through the Bail Order Management System.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the alleged offences under the B.N.S., POCSO Act and SC/ST Act
Whether the contradictions in the victim’s statements and the dispute over her age affect the bail eligibility
Whether the applicant’s lack of criminal history and prolonged pre‑trial detention justify bail

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 180, 183, 64(2)h, 64(2)m
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 5j(ii), 5(q), 6
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(V)

Subjects

bail
rape
POCSO Act
SC/ST Act
age of consent
contradictory statements
false implication
pre‑trial detention
overcrowded jails

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31659 of 2026

Rajesh Bind
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. Heard Shri Anand 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. 30 of 2025, under Sections 64(2)m,
64(2)h of B.N.S. and Sections 5j(ii)/5(q)/6 of POCSO Act and Section
3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Ahraura, District Mirzapur, 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 the first
information report has been lodged after delay of five months and from the
conduct of the victim, it appears that she is a consenting party. 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 was in
friendship with the applicant and she knew the applicant for the last 3
years, whereas, the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183
BNSS has stated that the applicant committed rape on her. It is further
submitted that the age of the victim has been found to be 18-19 years as per
ossification test and the age of the victim has been found to be 17 years and
BAIL No. 31659 of 2026
2

6 months as per school records of Class V on the date of registration of the
first information report, however, there is no certificate of high school or
certificate of school first attended. It is further submitted that the applicant
is having no criminal history and the applicant has been languishing in jail
since 19.02.2026, 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 age of the victim has been found
to be 17 years and 6 months as per certificate of Class V and the age of
the victim has been found to be 18-19 years as per ossification test.

5. As per first information report, the applicant is said to have committed
rape on the victim aged about 17 years and she is pregnant of give
months, however, on perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under
Sections 180 and 183 BNSS and from the conduct of the victim, it appears
that she is a consenting party. 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 was in friendship with the applicant and she
knew the applicant for the last 3 years, whereas, the victim in her
statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS has stated that the applicant
committed rape on her. It is further submitted that the age of the victim has
been found to be 18-19 years as per ossification test and the age of the
victim has been found to be 17 years and 6 months as per school records of
Class V on the date of registration of the first information report, however,
there is no certificate of high school or certificate of school first attended.
It is further submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history and
the applicant has been languishing in jail since 19.02.2026.

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
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
BAIL No. 31659 of 2026
3

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- Rajesh Bind 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.

12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
BAIL No. 31659 of 2026
4

Jail Superintendent, Mirzapur 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…