Allahabad High Court
DHARMENDRA KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
The Court allowed the bail application, granting bail to the applicant subject to conditions.
Summary
The applicant, Dharmendra Kumar, was arrested in connection with a case involving a 16‑year‑old victim, as established by an ossification report. The applicant's counsel argued that the victim's statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S. showed no offence under Section 64, contending that the accusation was a false implication motivated by ulterior motives. The State, represented by the A.G.A., opposed bail, asserting that the applicant's innocence could not be determined at the pre‑trial stage and that he might reoffend if released. After considering the submissions, the nature of the evidence, and the circumstances, the Court, without expressing a view on the merits, found that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to personal bond, sureties, and several conditions aimed at preventing tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused at the pre‑trial stage despite the seriousness of the allegations.
- Whether the alleged false implication and the victim's age affect the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- false implication
- victim age
- conditions of bail
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34622 of 2025
Dharmendra Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Ashish Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. Pursuant to the earlier order of this Court, learned A.G.A.
has filed compliance affidavit today in the Court, wherein the
ossification report of the victim has been annexed as
Annexure-1. Perusal of the same would go to show that the
victim is aged about 16 years.
2. Office vide its report dated 19.11.2025 has reported that
notice issued to the first informant of the case has been served
inspite of service of notice, none appears either for the
informant or for the High Court Legal Services.
3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for
the State and peruse d the record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that
according to the ossification test, though the age of the victim
is about 16 years but perusal of the statement of the victim
recorded under Section 183 of B.N.S.S. would go to show that
no offence under Section 64 of B.N.S.S., is made out. It is thus
contended that it is a case of false implication and that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to
ulterior motive. Several other submissions in order to
demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the
applicant have also been placed before the Court. The
circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false
BAIL No. 34622 of 2025
2
implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has
also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to
cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make
himself available before the court whenever required and is
also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may
deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is
languishing in jail since 16.05.2025.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of
the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant
cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not
deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on
bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse
the liberty of bail.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of
evidence, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case,
without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this
Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for
bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.
7. Let applicant Dharmendra Kumar involved in Case Crime
No.263 of 2025 under Sections 87, 137 (2), 64 B.N.S., Section
3/4 of POSCO Act, Police Station Sirsaganj, District
Firozabad, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond
and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following
conditions:-
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution
witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial
court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the
BAIL No. 34622 of 2025
3
offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the
commission.
v) 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 such person from
disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper
with the evidence.
8. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the trial
Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in
accordance with law.
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
March 18, 2026
S.Ali
Digitally signed by :-
SHAUKAT ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…