Allahabad High Court
SAMIRversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail and the bail application is allowed.
Summary
Samir was arrested in connection with a case registered as Crime No. 443 of 2024, alleging offences under IPC sections 376, 506, 328, 354, 509 and POCSO Act sections 3 and 4. The FIR mentions an attempt to rape, while the victim’s statements are contradictory – one under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS alleges rape, another before the trial court denies it and expresses willingness to marry the accused. The applicant contended that there is no incriminating material, the medico‑legal report does not support a rape charge, and he has no prior criminal record, having been in custody since 22‑08‑2024 with only two witnesses examined. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the victim’s minority (16 years) as per ossification test. The Court, considering the lack of substantive evidence, the principle of presumption of innocence, overcrowded jails, and precedents such as Kapil Wadhawan vs CBI and Maya Tiwari vs State of U.P., granted bail with standard conditions. The order directs verification of identities, bond execution, and electronic transmission of the release order to the jail.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a case involving alleged rape of a minor under IPC and POCSO provisions despite serious charges.
- Whether the contradictory statements of the victim and lack of medical evidence render the evidence insufficient to justify continued detention.
- Whether the principles of presumption of innocence and jail overcrowding outweigh the seriousness of the alleged offences.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 328, 354, 376, 506, 509
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- minor
- POCSO
- IPC
- criminal procedure
- overcrowded jails
- evidentiary insufficiency
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38365 of 2025
Samir
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajat Agarwal, Virpratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Shri Virpratap 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, Amroha, notice
has been served on the first informant.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 443 of 2024, under Sections 376,
506, 328, 354, 509 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police
Station Naugawa Sadat, District Amroha, 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 there is no
allegation of rape in the first information report and there is allegation of
attempt to rape. It is further submitted that the victim in her statement
recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS has stated that the applicant
committed rape on her and the victim in her testimony before the learned
trial Court has stated that no such act was committed by the applicant and
she is still ready to marry the applicant. It is further submitted that the age
of the victim has been found to be 16 years as per ossification test. 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 22.08.2024 and till date only two witnesses have
BAIL No. 38365 of 2025
2
been examined and since the victim and the first informant have already
been examined and there is no chance of tampering of evidence, in case,
he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would
cooperate in the trial proceedings.
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
16 years as per ossification test.
5. As per first information report, there is no allegation of rape and there
is allegation of attempt to rape and the victim in her statement recorded
under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS has stated that the applicant committed
rape on her and the victim in her testimony before the learned trial Court
has stated that no such act was committed by the applicant and she is still
ready to marry the applicant. It is further submitted that the age of the
victim has been found to be 16 years as per ossification test. 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 22.08.2024 and till date only two witnesses have been examined and
since the victim and the first informant have already been examined and
there is no chance of tampering of evidence.
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- Samir involved in the aforementioned crime be
BAIL No. 38365 of 2025
3
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.
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, Amroha 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…