Allahabad High Court
AMIRversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Amir, accused under Sections 137(2), 65(1) of the CrPC and Sections 3 and 4(2) of the POCSO Act for alleged rape of a minor. The applicant argued that the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the CrPC were contradictory, the medical report did not support rape, and he had no prior criminal record. The State contended that the victim, a minor of about 15 years, had alleged non‑consensual intercourse in her Section 183 statement. Weighing the contradictions, the lack of medical corroboration, the applicant’s clean record, jail overcrowding, and the guidelines laid down in Kapil Wadhawan vs CBI, Maya Tiwari vs U.P., and the Supreme Court’s policy on bail, the court granted bail without commenting on the merits. The bail was conditioned on a personal bond, sureties, and compliance with standard bail conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a POCSO case involving a minor where victim statements are contradictory and medical evidence is inconclusive.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offence and the victim’s minority preclude bail.
- Whether the applicant’s lack of criminal history and jail overcrowding justify bail under the CrPC.
- How the precedents set in Kapil Wadhawan vs CBI, Maya Tiwari vs State of U.P., and the Supreme Court’s bail policy apply.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 137(2), 180, 183, 65(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4(2)
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- minor
- rape
- contradictory statements
- jail overcrowding
- Criminal Procedure Code
- precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31707 of 2026
Amir
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Raj Pandey, Shubham
Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): Ahamad Farhan, G.A., Haya Rizvi
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri Uma Shanker Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and
Miss Haya Rizvi, learned counsel for the first informant.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 69 of 2026, under
Sections 137(2), 65(1) BNS and Sections 3/4(2) of POCSO Act,
Police Station Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahar during the
pendency of the trial.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and there
are material contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded
under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS as she in her statement under
Section 180 BNSS has stated that she had left her home on her
free will and the applicant established physical relationship with her
on her consent whereas in her statement under Section 183 BNSS
she has stated that the applicant established physical relationship
without her on her consent. It is further submitted that the age of
the victim has been found to be 16 years as per FIR and as per her
statement and 15 years and 04 months as per her certificate of
school first attended. It is further submitted that initially the victim
has refused to undergo medico-legal examination, however, on the
BAIL No. 31707 of 2026
2
same day the medico-legal examination of the victim was
conducted, however, the same does not support the commission of
rape on her. It is also submitted that the applicant has been
languishing in jail since 25.3.2026 and he is having no criminal
history. It is lastly submitted that in case the applicant is granted
bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in
the trial proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned
A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not
dispute the aforesaid facts, however, it is submitted that the victim
is a minor girl aged about 15 years and 04 months as per her
certificate of school first attended and the victim in her statement
recorded under Section183 BNSS has stated that the applicant
committed rape on her.
5. As per the allegation in the FIR, the applicant is said to have
enticed away the daughter of the first informant, however, the
victim has been recovered, however, there appears to be material
contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under
Sections 180 and 183 BNSS as she in her statement under
Section 180 BNSS has stated that she had left her home on her
free will and the applicant established physical relationship with her
on her consent whereas in her statement under Section 183 BNSS
she has stated that the applicant established physical relationship
without her on her consent. The age of the victim has been found
to be 15 years and 04 months as per her certificate of school first
attended and the medico-legal report of the victim does not support
the commission of rape on her. The applicant has been
languishing in jail since 25.3.2026 and he is having no criminal
history.
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
BAIL No. 31707 of 2026
3
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- Amir 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
BAIL No. 31707 of 2026
4
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 concerned Jail Superintendent 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.
September 30, 2026
Abhishek
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…