Allahabad High Court
SURESH KUMAR YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court granted bail to the accused, finding that the circumstances created a reasonable basis for release.
Summary
The High Court considered the bail application of Suresur Kumar Yadav, who is charged with rape of a minor under Sections 70(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) of the B.N.S.S. and Sections 5(G) and 6 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that the offence occurred on 5 July 2025, but the FIR was filed three days later and the victim’s statement was inconsistent, having increased the number of accused from one to three. The applicant’s counsel argued that he is innocent, has no prior criminal record, and has been in custody since 13 November 2025, and that the victim’s age is uncertain due to a radiological margin of error. The Court noted the delay in filing the FIR, the vacillating victim statement, and the uncertainty about the victim’s exact age, and found that these factors created reasonable doubt. Without passing on the merits of the case, the Court concluded that the applicant had made out a case for bail and ordered his release on personal bond and sureties with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a rape case under the POCSO Act given the delay in filing the FIR and the inconsistent victim statement.
- Whether the uncertainty regarding the victim's exact age affects the grant of bail.
- Whether the accused's lack of criminal history and willingness to cooperate merit bail despite serious charges.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- POCSO
- FIR delay
- victim statement inconsistency
- age of victim
- criminal history
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43917 of 2025
Suresh Kumar Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankit Agarval, Shyam Babu, Vinay
Kumar Jaiswal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Niharika Dubey, Rajeev Singh
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No.178 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 Ankit Agarval, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A.K.
Shukla, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Rajeev Singh, learned
counsel for the informant as well as Sri J.K. Chaurasia, learned State Law
Officer and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 265 of 2025, under Sections
70(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS and 5(G)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station
Jhunsi, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape
with the victim on 5.7.2025 at 6.35 pm in a mango orchard.
5. 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 by three days and there is no explanation of the said delay
caused. The story as narrated by the victim in her statement recorded under
Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S., is vacillating as she has increased the
number of accused persons from one to three. The victim, by her physical
appearance, seems to be major although her age is 16-17 years as per
ossification test report and a leverage of two years may be granted to the
applicant on the upper side.
BAIL No. 43917 of 2025
2
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no
criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since
13.11.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently
opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions made by
the counsel for the applicant.
8. In the judgement of Supreme Court passed 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, it has been 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.
9. 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 FIR; the vacillating statement of the victim 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.
10. Let the applicant- Suresh Kumar Yadav, who is involved in
aforementioned case 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 subject to verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall
not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the
trial court as required.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
12. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent
opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 23, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…