Allahabad High Court
BALRAM PANDEY URF BALIRAM PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted in the present POCSO case given the victim’s statements and medical evidence indicating sexual assault.
Summary
The applicant, Balram Pandey, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 335 of 2025) under Sections 65(2) of the BNS Act and Sections 5M/6 of the POCSO Act for alleged rape of an eight‑year‑old girl. The applicant claimed false implication, citing the victim’s medical report as showing no injuries and alleging enmity with the victim’s father, and argued that a charge sheet had already been filed, negating the need for custodial interrogation. The prosecution, represented by the first informant’s counsel and the State’s A.G.A., relied on the victim’s statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNS Act and a medical examination indicating inflammation of the labia, asserting the seriousness of the offence. After considering the victim’s statements, the medical report, and the nature of the alleged offence, the Court declined to grant bail. The bail application was therefore rejected, with the Court directing the trial court to expedite the trial in line with the Supreme Court’s direction in Liakat Ali v. State of Jammu & Kashmir.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused in a POCSO case involving an eight‑year‑old victim based on the medical report and victim’s statements.
- Whether the filing of a charge sheet obviates the need for custodial interrogation for bail considerations.
- Whether alleged false implication and lack of prior criminal record justify bail in a serious sexual offence.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- sexual assault
- minor victim
- medical evidence
- false implication
- expedited trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34286 of 2025
Balram Pandey Urf Baliram Pandey
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mahendra Pal Singh Gaur, Prabhat
Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manoj Kumar
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Saurabh Raj, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mahendra Pal
Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel
for the first informant and Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the
State.
2. Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 335 of 2025, under
Sections 65 (2) BNS and 5M/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Gagaha, District-
Gorakhpur.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case though there is allegation of
committing rape upon the victim, who is 8 year old girl but medical report of
the victim does not show any mark of injury or sign of sexual assault.
Therefore, the applicant has been falsely implicated because of prior enmity
between the applicant and father of the victim. Charge sheet has been filed
by the police, therefore, there is no requirement for custodial interrogation.
The applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since
07.06.2025. 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 counsel for the first informant as well as learned
A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted
that victim girl made specific allegation in her statement recorded under
Sections 180 and 183 BNSS against the applicant for penetrative sexual
BAIL No. 34286 of 2025
2
assault and on crying her, she was left by the accused. This fact was also
duly substantiated by the medical examination report of the victim which
shows labia majora inflamed and labia minora, therefore, the applicant is not
entitled to be released on bail.
5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking
into account the statements of victim under Section 180 and 183 BNSS as
well as medical examination report of the victim, this Court is not inclined to
grant bail to the applicant.
6. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected.
7. However, trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as
expeditiously as possible in view of direction of the Apex Court in the case
of Liakat Ali vs state of Jammu and Kashmir passed in Writ Petition
(Crl) No.99 of 2026 decided on 16.07.2026.
September 18, 2026
A.Kr.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
AJAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…