Allahabad High Court
ANIL KUMAR @ ANKITversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court allowed bail to the accused, finding that the lack of medical evidence created a reasonable doubt sufficient to justify release.
Summary
Anil Kumar, accused under Sections 65(2) BNS and 5M/6 of the POCSO Act for raping a minor, applied for bail during trial. The prosecution alleged that the victim was taken to a secluded place, found naked and bloodied in a sugarcane field. The applicant contended he was falsely implicated, noting that the FIR was lodged within eight hours but the victim’s medical examination, conducted the same night, showed no injuries. The court observed the absence of medical corroboration and, without passing on the merits, held that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail was granted on personal bond and sureties with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a POCSO rape case when medical evidence does not corroborate the alleged offence.
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 65(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 — s. 5M, 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- rape
- medical evidence
- false implication
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38309 of 2025
Anil Kumar @ Ankit
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Maurya, Kushagra Vaibhav Singh,
Pradeep Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.115 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the
applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Jai
Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.211 of 2025, under Sections 65(2)
BNS and 5M/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Rampur Maniharan, District
Saharanpur, during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The applicant is stated to have taken the victim to a secluded place and
committed rape with her. The victim was found without any clothes in the
sugarcane field, soaked with blood and was in a shock. As such, she was
retrieved by the villagers.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case.
6. The FIR was instituted promptly, i.e. after about eight hours of the
incident, but the allegations made in the FIR do not stand corroborated by
BAIL No. 38309 of 2025
2
any medical evidence rather the medical evidence proves it otherwise, as not
a single scrimish or scratch was found on the body of the victim.
7. The medical examination of the victim was conducted on 17.06.2025 at
11:50 p.m., the same night of the institution of the FIR. Despite prompt
medical examination, there is no injury sustained by the victim. As such, it is
a clear-cut case of false implication.
8. Even the victim has stated that she along with applicant was handed over
to the police. The said statement stands falsified from the arrest memo of the
applicant, whereby he was arrested on 18.06.2025 by the police.
9. The criminal history assigned to the applicant has been explained. He is in
jail since 18.6.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse
the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
10. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the
learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.
CONCLUSION:
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made
by the counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and there being no
medical corroboration of the incident, and without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made
out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
12. Let the applicant- Anil Kumar @ Ankit, be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court
concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he
shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear
before the trial court as required.
13. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…