Allahabad High Court
RAJESH ALIAS NIRHUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
Bail was denied as the application was found to be devoid of merit.
Summary
The applicant, Rajesh alias Nirhu, sought bail in a case registered under Sections 137(2), 142, 64(1) of the IPC, Section 70 of the Evidence Act and Sections 5(g) and 6 of the POCSO Act, alleging false implication in a gang‑rape allegation. He argued that he was not named in the FIR, that the victim was a major (aged 18‑19) and had consented, that the FIR was filed two days late without explanation, and that there was no medical evidence, while the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 were contradictory. The State and the informant’s counsel countered that the victim had specifically named the applicant in her statement under Section 183, making the allegation serious. The court held that the bail application lacked merit, primarily because the victim’s categorical nomination outweighed the applicant’s contentions, and consequently rejected the bail. The court also directed that the trial proceed expeditiously, citing Supreme Court precedents.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a gang‑rape case under the IPC and POCSO Act despite the victim’s identification of the accused.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR, absence of medical evidence, and contradictory statements affect the bail eligibility.
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 70 BNS
- Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 142, 64(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5(g), 6
Subjects
- bail
- gang rape
- POCSO
- victim age
- FIR delay
- contradictory statements
- speedy trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36087 of 2025
Rajesh Alias Nirhu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arun Kumar Mishra, Mukesh Kumar
Singh, Radha Kant Singh, Ram Awadh
Saroj, Roli Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Hare Ram Pandey
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 153 out of 323)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the
informant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Ram Awadh Saroj, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Amit
Kumar Mishra, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Hare Ram Pandey,
learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime
No. 0134 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 142, 64(1), 70 BNS and 5g/6
POCSO Act, Police Station Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur, with the prayer
to enlarge him on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
allegations are per se false. The applicant is not named in the FIR. His name
has come up for the first time in the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183
BNSS. The radiological age of the victim is 18-19 years, as such she was
major and is the consenting party as far as the applicant is concerned. The
FIR is delayed by about two days and there is no explanation of the said
delay caused. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The
statement of the victim recorded u/s 180 and 183 BNSS are contradictory to
each other, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail.
BAIL No. 36087 of 2025
2
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has no
criminal history and is in jail since 5.5.2025 and is ready to cooperate with
trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty
of bail.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has and learned counsel for the informant
have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that it is a case
of gang rape and the victim has categorically nominated the applicant in her
statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the fact that the victim has categorically nominated the applicant in her
statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail
to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is,
accordingly, rejected.
8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as
has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the
cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain
and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal
impediment.
9. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 7, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…