Allahabad High Court
RINKU PALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the contradictions in evidence, delay in FIR, absence of medical proof, and the need to avoid overcrowded jails justify granting bail to the accused despite the seriousness of the POCSO charges.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Rinku Pal, who was charged under Sections 137(1), 64(2)(M) of the B.N.S. and Sections 5L/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for alleged rape of a minor. The prosecution alleged that the accused lured the victim to a secluded place, committed rape, and subsequently blackmailed her, while the defence highlighted contradictions in the victim's statements, a delayed FIR, and a medical report showing no injuries. The court noted the applicant's clean criminal record, the filing of a charge sheet, and the overcrowding of prisons, and referred to recent Supreme Court and High Court precedents on bail. Balancing the nature of the offence against the evidentiary gaps and policy considerations, the court granted bail with strict conditions. The order directed verification of identities, issuance of the bail order through electronic systems, and stipulated that breach of conditions would lead to cancellation of bail.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a POCSO case involving alleged rape of a minor despite serious charges
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and lack of medical evidence justify release on bail
- Whether the filing of a charge sheet eliminates the need for custodial interrogation
- Whether the principles laid down in recent Supreme Court and High Court bail jurisprudence apply to the present case
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 137(1), 183, 64(2)(M)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 5L, 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- rape of minor
- delay in FIR
- medical evidence
- overcrowded prisons
- Supreme Court bail guidelines
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35217 of 2026
Rinku Pal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Saurabh Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Saurabh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Bhupendra Pal Singh, 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. 560 of 2026, under Sections 137(1),
64(2)(M) B.N.S. and Section 5L/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offence Act, 2012, Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra, during the
pendency of the trial.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that as per the
prosecution story, the applicant persuaded the daughter of the victim at 11:00
p.m. on 18.06.2026 to come to a secluded place and thereafter committed
rape on her. Thereafter, the victim also informed her mother on 26.06.2026
and, on the basis of some audio conversation between the victim and the
applicant, he had been blackmailing her for the last six months and committed
rape on several occasions. It is further submitted that from the perusal of the
statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS, it is clear that the
victim was in a relationship with the applicant for the last six months and the
FIR itself was lodged after more than 15 days of the incident in question and
the medical examination report of the victim does not show any mark of injury
or any kind of sexual assault. It is further submitted that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case at the instructions of the parents of
the victim when they came to know about the relationship of the victim with the
applicant and, on tutoring by her parents, the victim made allegations of
committing rape, though there is no other material to substantiate the same
and the CDR report itself shows that the victim was in a relationship with the
applicant.
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,
BAIL No. 35217 of 2026
2
there is no requirement of custodial interrogation. The applicant is a law-
abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 08.07.2026. 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 delay in lodging the FIR without any proper explanation,
coupled with the medical examination report of the victim 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- Rinku Pal, 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
cancellation of bail.
9. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified
BAIL No. 35217 of 2026
3
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, Sonbhadra 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…