Allahabad High Court
RAJANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Rajan, accused in Criminal Case No. 414 of 2025 for offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1), 123 BNS of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The victim, a 17‑year‑old girl, gave contradictory statements: initially she identified the applicant as her cousin and said she went with him, but later refused to name him. The applicant asserted his innocence, highlighted the lack of a criminal record and argued that the allegations were false. The State opposed bail but could not refute the factual contentions raised by the applicant. After evaluating the victim's statements, the applicant's clean record, and the circumstances of his pre‑trial detention since 14‑09‑2025, the Court held that bail was appropriate, subject to standard conditions. The bail was granted without expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged under serious IPC and POCSO provisions in light of contradictory victim statements.
- Whether the absence of prior criminal history and the nature of the victim's testimony justify bail.
- What conditions may be imposed on bail in such a case.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 123 BNS, 137(2), 64(1), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- POCSO Act
- victim testimony
- contradictory statements
- no prior record
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41931 of 2025
Rajan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Deepankar Shukla, Mukesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akashi Agrawal, G.A., Saurabh Pathak
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Case called out in revised list. None present on behalf of informant.
2. Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Akashi
Agrawal, learned counsel for High Court Legal Service and Sri Rajni Kant Rai,
learned AGA for the State.
3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in
Case Crime No. 414 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1), 123 BNS and Section
3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bidhuna, District Auraiya during pendency of the
trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant is innocent and on the basis of
false allegation he has been made accused in the present matter.
5. He further submits, victim is not a literate girl and as per ossification test report she
was about 17 years and she however in her statement recorded under Section 180
BNSS stated that she herself had gone along with applicant but when subsequently her
statement under Section 183 BNSS was recorded then she did not disclose the name of
applicant.
6. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present
matter he is in jail since 14.09.2025.
7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for High Court Legal Service
opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by
learned counsel for the applicant.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
9. Victim of the case does not appear to be literate girl and as per ossification test
report she was about 17 years old. Further, however victim in her statement recorded
under Section 180 BNSS stated that applicant is her cousin brother and she herself had
BAIL No. 41931 of 2025
2
gone along with applicant but subsequently when her statement under Section 183
BNSS was recorded then she did not disclose the name of applicant, therefore,
considering the statements of victim it is not proper to withhold the bail application of
applicant.
10. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is
in jail since 14.09.2025.
11. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in
my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
12. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant
bail application is allowed.
13. Let the applicant -Rajan be released on bail in the aforesaid case on 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 appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his
personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
14. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty
to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.
15. 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.
March 18, 2026
AK Pandey
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…