Allahabad High Court
LAKHAN SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
Lakhan Singh was arrested in a case alleging rape of a seven‑year‑old girl under Sections 333, 65(2), 62 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act. The victim and the first informant turned hostile before the trial court and refused a medico‑legal examination, leaving no medical evidence. The applicant, who has been in custody since 7 May 2026 and has no prior criminal record, sought bail, arguing false implication. The State opposed bail but could not dispute the hostile stance of the witnesses. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Kapil Wadhawan v CBI, Maya Tiwari v State of U.P.) and the policy on bail to decongest prisons, the High Court granted bail without commenting on the merits, imposing standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a serious offence of alleged rape of a minor when the key witnesses have turned hostile and no medical evidence exists.
- Whether the applicant’s right to bail outweighs the nature of the alleged offence and the interests of justice.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 333, 62, 65(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5(m), 6
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- minor
- POCSO
- hostile witnesses
- jail overcrowding
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32037 of 2026
Lakhan Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashutosh Gupta, Vandana Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohammad Areeb, Mohd. Faizan
Ali
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Uma Shanker Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mohammad
Areeb, 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. 177 of 2026, under Sections 333,
65(2), 62 of BNS and Section 5(m)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station
Sadabad Kotwali, District Hathras, during the pendency of the trial.
3. At the very outset, learned AGA submits that notice has been served on
the first informant.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and the victim
and the first informant have turned hostile before the trial Court and they
have not supported the allegation of the FIR and the first informant has
refused to get the victim medico-legally examined, therefore, there is no
medical evidence to corroborate the allegation. It is also submitted that t
he applicant has been languishing in jail since 7.5.2026 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.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant
BAIL No. 32037 of 2026
2
have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the
aforesaid facts, however, it is submitted ...
6. As per the allegation in the FIR, the applicant is said to have
committed rape on the victim aged about 07 years, however, the victim
and the first informant have turned hostile before the trial Court and they
have not supported the allegation of the FIR and the first informant has
refused to get the victim medico-legally examined. The applicant has
been languishing in jail since 7.5.2026 and he is having no criminal
history.
7. 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
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.
8. Accordingly, the present application is ALLOWED.
9. Let the applicant- Lakhan Singh 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.
BAIL No. 32037 of 2026
3
(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.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground
for cancellation of bail.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
October 1, 2026
Abhishek
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…