Allahabad High Court
VIPIN ALIAS AMARNATH DHARIKARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail and the bail application is allowed.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Vipin alias Amarnath Dharikar, who was arrested in a case under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 5M/6 of the POCSO Act for alleged sexual offences against a minor girl. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, that the victim’s age was uncertain (a Class V certificate indicated 12 years, while radiological examination suggested 17‑18 years), and that the medico‑legal report did not support a rape allegation; he also had no prior criminal record and had been in custody since 28‑03‑2025. The State contended that the victim was a minor of about 12 years. The Court, after weighing the conflicting age evidence, the lack of incriminating material, the applicant’s clean record, and the need to decongest jails, referred to Supreme Court precedents (Kapil Wadhawan v CBI, Maya Tiwari v State of U.P.) and a policy directive on bail. Without expressing an opinion on the merits, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, imposed standard conditions, and ordered his release.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant, accused of offences under the B.N.S. and POCSO Act involving a minor, is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the allegations.
- Whether the conflicting evidence regarding the victim’s age and the lack of medico‑legal corroboration affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 137(2), 65(2), 87
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 180, 183
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 5M, 6
Subjects
- bail
- minor victim
- POCSO Act
- false implication
- age discrepancy
- jail overcrowding
- Supreme Court guidelines
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37332 of 2025
Vipin Alias Amarnath Dharikar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Yogesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Shri Yogesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and
Shri B.P. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. As
per report submitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur,
notice has been served on the first informant. The ossification report of
the victim has also been received by this Court.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 202 of 2024, under Sections 137(2),
87, 65(2) of B.N.S. and Section 5M/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station
Karimuddinpur, District Ghazipur, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case though there is no
incriminating material against him. It is further submitted that on perusal
of the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183
BNSS, it appears that she is a consenting party and the age of the victim
has been found to be 17-18 years as per radio-logical examination and the
age of the victim has been found to be 12 years as per certificate of Class
V, however, there is no certificate of high school or certificate of school
first attended. It is further submitted that the medico legal report does not
support the allegation of commission rape on her. It is further submitted
that the applicant is having no criminal history and the applicant has been
languishing in jail since 28.03.2025, in case, he is granted bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
BAIL No. 37332 of 2025
2
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail
and it has been submitted by him that the victim is a minor girl aged about
12 years as per certificate of Class V and as per ossification test, the age
of the victim has been found to be 17-18 years.
5. As per first information report, the applicant is said to have enticed
away the daughter of the first informant, however, the victim has been
recovered and on perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under
Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, it appears that she is a consenting party and
the age of the victim has been found to be 17-18 years as per radio-logical
examination and the age of the victim has been found to be 12 years as
per certificate of Class V, however, there is no certificate of high school
or certificate of school first attended. It is further submitted that the
medico legal report does not support the allegation of commission rape
on her. It is further submitted that the applicant is having no criminal
history and the applicant has been languishing in jail since 28.03.2025.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
of learned counsel for the parties 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 judgement 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. reported in 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.
7. Accordingly, the present application is ALLOWED.
8. Let the applicant- Vipin Alias Amarnath Dharikar 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
BAIL No. 37332 of 2025
3
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.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant as well
as sureties should be verified by the court concerned.
11. 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.
12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
Jail Superintendent, Ghazipur via e-mail or e-prison portal 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.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
September 8, 2026
RKM
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…