Allahabad High Court
ARVIND KUMAR KASHYAPversusSTATE 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 Arvind Kumar Kashyap in Criminal Case No. 334 of 2026, which involved alleged sexual assault and outraging the modesty of a minor girl under Sections 65(1), 115(2), 126(2), 352, 351(3) of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed false implication, highlighted contradictions between the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNS, and argued that the victim’s age was not medically verified and the medico‑legal report did not support a rape charge. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the victim’s minor status and her statement alleging rape, despite the FIR only mentioning sexual assault. The Court, referring to Supreme Court precedents (Kapil Wadhawan v CBI, Maya Tiwari v State of U.P., and the 2023 policy on bail), noted the lack of conclusive evidence, the applicant’s clean record, and the need to decongest jails, and therefore granted bail with standard conditions. The order directed verification of identities, compliance with bond terms, and prompt release through the Bail Order Management System.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving alleged sexual assault of a minor under the POCSO Act and other provisions, given contradictions in the victim’s statements and lack of corroborative medical evidence.
- Whether the applicant’s clean criminal record and the principle of jail decongestion justify bail despite the seriousness of the alleged offence.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- sexual assault
- minor
- POCSO
- contradictory statements
- jail overcrowding
- Supreme Court guidelines
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33172 of 2026
Arvind Kumar Kashyap
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rahul Saxena
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Rahul Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shiv
Dutt Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 334 of 2026, under Sections 65(1),
115(2), 126(2), 352, 351(3) of BNS and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act,
Police Station Bisalpur, District Pilibhit, 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 there are
material contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under
Sections 180 and 183 BNSS. It is further submitted that the age of the
victim has been found to be 15 years, 11 months and 14 days as per her
certificate of Class 9th, however, there is no High School certificate or the
certificate of school first attended and no radio-logical examination of the
victim has been conducted for her age determination. It is further
submitted that the medico-legal report of the victim does not support the
commission of rape on her. It is also submitted that the applicant has been
languishing in jail since 14.7.2026 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.
BAIL No. 33172 of 2026
2
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail,
however, it is submitted that the the victim is a minor girl aged about 15
years and 11 months as per her certificate of Class 9th and the victim in
her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS has supported the
allegations of commission of rape on her.
6. There is no allegation of rape in the FIR and there is allegation of
sexual assault and outraging the modesty of the victim in the FIR. 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 the applicant sexually harassed her and
outraged her modesty whereas in her statement under Section 183 BNSS
she has stated that the applicant committed rape on her. The age of the
victim has been found to be 15 years, 11 months and 14 days as per her
certificate of Class 9th, however, there is no High School certificate or the
certificate of school first attended and no radio-logical examination of the
victim has been conducted for her age determination. The medico-legal
report of the victim does not support the commission of rape on her. The
applicant has been languishing in jail since 14.7.2026 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- Arvind Kumar Kashyap involved in the
aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal
BAIL No. 33172 of 2026
3
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.
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.)
September 29, 2026
Abhishek
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…