Allahabad High Court

RAKESH @ RAKESH BABUversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. for Rakesh Babu, who was charged under IPC sections 351(3), 352, 137(2), 87 and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. The applicant claimed false implication, arguing that the victim’s age was incorrectly recorded and that her statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S. were inconsistent, with no allegation of force or corroborative evidence linking the applicant to the offence. The State could not refute these points. The Court found prima facie inconsistencies, no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation, and noted the applicant’s two‑month pre‑trial confinement and clean record. Consequently, the Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to personal bond, sureties and standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the inconsistencies in the victim's statements and lack of corroborative evidence justify granting bail.
Whether the prosecution has shown a reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay if bail is granted.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 483
Indian Penal Code — s. 137, 351, 352, 87
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act — s. 9

Subjects

bail
inconsistent statements
child marriage
IPC sections 351 352 137 87
evidence tampering
witness intimidation
pre‑trial detention

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33501 of 2026

Rakesh @ Rakesh Babu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)

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

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra,
learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application, under Section 483 B.N.S.S., has been filed
with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 195 of
2026, under Sections 351(3), 352, 137(2), 87 B.N.S. and Section 9 of
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, Police Station- Kyoladia, District-
Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The victim is a major. The age of the victim
was incorrectly got registered in the school records by the victim's parents to
give her advantage in life. There is no lawful basis for the age related entry
of the victim in the school records disclosing her age and the entries made
are unbelievable. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 180
B.N.S.S. has stated that she voluntarily left her house. There is no allegation
against the applicant. However, the victim, in her statement recorded under
Section 183 B.N.S.S., narrated an entirely different version and stated that
she had voluntarily accompanied the applicant to Bareilly and married him.
There is no allegation of any forceful assault against the applicant. It is
contended that the material inconsistencies between the statements of the
victim under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. discredits the prosecution case.
At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the
offence. The applicant is in jail since 18.07.2026 having no criminal history
and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but
could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
BAIL No. 33501 of 2026
2

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this
Court prima facie finds that there are inconsistencies between the statements
of the victim recorded under Sections 180 B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S. There
is no allegation of any forceful assault against the applicant. At this stage
there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence.
Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than two months and
there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable
apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if
enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or
intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of
the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant Rakesh @ Rakesh Babu, involved in the aforesaid case
crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to
the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

September 29, 2026
Abhishek
(Vivek Varma, J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…