Allahabad High Court
RAJPALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application is allowed.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Rajpal, who was charged under Sections 65(1), 352, 351(3) of the IPC and Sections 3(2) and 4(2) of the POCSO Act for alleged outraging the modesty of a 16‑year‑old girl, later escalated to rape. The applicant pleaded innocence, highlighted the delayed filing of the FIR and the subsequent alteration of the charge, and questioned the reliability of the victim's age determination based on ossification tests. The State and the informant opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences. The Court, relying on precedents that caution against precise age determination by radiologists and noting the procedural irregularities, found a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, the bail was granted subject to a personal bond, sureties, and standard conditions, without prejudice to the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving serious IPC and POCSO offences given the delay in FIR registration and change in allegations.
- Whether the age of the alleged victim, as determined by ossification test, can be relied upon for POCSO applicability.
- Whether the applicant’s lack of criminal history and willingness to cooperate justify bail despite the nature of the charges.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 351(3), 352, 65(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3(2), 4(2)
Subjects
- bail
- IPC
- POCSO Act
- delay in FIR
- age determination
- presumption of innocence
- sexual offences
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42128 of 2025
Rajpal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nirbhay Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anil Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Aqueel
Khan, G.A., Sadhana Dubey
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.181 out of 277)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Nirbhay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohd.
Aqueel Khan, learned counsel for the informant, Ms. Sadhana Dubey,
learned counsel for High Court Legal Service Committee as well as Sri Jai
Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the
material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.305 of 2025, under Sections 65(1),
352, 351(3) BNS and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Patiali, District
Kasganj, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
FIR is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The
allegations in the FIR were regarding outraging the modesty only, but the
said allegations have been escalated to that of rape by the victim in her
statement recorded U/s 183 BNSS as an afterthought.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the victim by her
looks seems to be major, although she is stated to be 16 years old as per the
ossification test report. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail
since 3.10.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the
liberty of bail.
BAIL No. 42128 of 2025
2
6. Learned State Law Officer, learned counsel for the informant and learned
counsel for High Court Legal Service Committee have vehemently opposed
the bail application but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the
applicant could not be disputed.
7. The Supreme Court in Jaya Mala vs. State of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538
and Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC
192 has opined that the radiologist cannot predict the correct date of birth
rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay in institution of FIR coupled by the fact that the
allegations of rape have been raised subsequently, and without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view
that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is
allowed.
9. Let the applicant- Rajpal, 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.
10. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 20, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…