Allahabad High Court
ISRARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered bail application No. 35200 of 2026 filed by Israr, accused under Sections 70(2) and 137(2) of the B.N.S. Act and Sections 5G/6 of the POCSO Act for alleged kidnapping, attempted forced marriage and rape of a minor. The prosecution’s case relied on the victim’s statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S., but the victim refused a medical examination and the statements contained material contradictions, including the first informant’s inability to explain certain allegations and the non‑recovery of an alleged obscene video. The applicant pleaded no prior criminal record and argued that the charge sheet had already been filed, negating the need for custodial interrogation. The court, noting the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence, the overcrowding of jails, and the Supreme Court’s recent bail guidelines in Kapil Wadhawan v CBI and Maya Tiwari v State of U.P., held that bail was appropriate. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, sureties and strict conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or further criminal conduct.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged under the B.N.S. Act and POCSO Act despite serious allegations of kidnapping and rape.
- Whether contradictions in the victim’s statements and refusal to undergo medical examination create sufficient doubt to merit bail.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s recent bail jurisprudence and the state of jail overcrowding influence the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 137(2), 70(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5G, 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- kidnapping
- rape
- evidence contradictions
- overcrowded jails
- Supreme Court bail guidelines
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35200 of 2026
Israr
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Darshan Gupta, Pranjal Chaudhari, Saurabh
Kesarwani
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Saurabh Kesarwani, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Bhupendra Pal Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. No
one appeared on behalf of the first informant despite service of notice.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 82 of 2026, under Sections 70(2), 137(2)
BNS and Section 5G/6 of P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police Station Barla, District Aligarh,
during the pendency of the trial.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that in the FIR allegation
has been made that the applicant had enticed away the daughter of the first
informant in the presence of the first informant; subsequently, the victim was
recovered and she, in her statement, stated that the applicant along with the
co-accused, after administering sedative, kidnapped her and thereafter forcibly
tried to marry her and also committed rape. It is further submitted that there
are serious contradictions regarding the version mentioned in the statements
of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS and the victim has
refused to undergo medical examination. It is further submitted that the first
informant in her supplementary statement stated that she could not reply to
the question as to why she mentioned that the applicant had enticed away her
daughter in her presence. This creates doubt over the entire prosecution story.
It is further submitted that the victim and the applicant were in a relationship
and the victim left her house on her own free will and thereafter she returned
back and, after the knowledge of this fact, the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. It is lastly submitted that no obscene video, as
mentioned in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS,
has been recovered by the police. This further creates doubt over the entire
prosecution story.
BAIL No. 35200 of 2026
2
4. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. It is further
submitted that charge sheet has been filed in the present case, therefore,
there is no requirement of custodial interrogation. The applicant is a law-
abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 23.06.2026. In case he 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. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but
could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and contradictions in the statements of the
victim as well as the supplementary statement of the first informant and taking
into account the fact that the victim has refused to undergo medical
examination 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
judgment 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., 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. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Israr, 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.
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.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
BAIL No. 35200 of 2026
3
cancellation of bail.
9. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified
by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
10. Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant as well as
sureties should be verified by the court concerned.
11. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of
computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of
High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel with the
undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.
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 Jail
Superintendent, Aligarh via e-mail or on e-prison portal and Trial Court via e-
mode 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 as well
as Pila Pahan@Peela Pahan and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and
another, in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 169 of 2025, decided on
29.05.2026.
14. Application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
October 1, 2026
SA
Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…