Allahabad High Court

RAMBALI PAL ALIAS RAJU PALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 17 March 2026
Bench: SAMEER JAIN

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the material does not preclude the possibility of false implication and the applicant has no prior record.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Rambali Pal alias Raju Pal, who is accused of sexual exploitation of a married woman and alleged sexual assault on her nine‑year‑old daughter under various provisions of the IPC, SC/ST Act and POCSO Act. The applicant claimed innocence, alleging that the informant, a major married woman, fabricated the allegations after a personal dispute and that her statements were inconsistent. The prosecution could not refute the applicant’s factual contentions but highlighted that the daughter’s statement also implicated the applicant, and the possibility of inducement by the mother could not be ruled out. The court noted the applicant’s lack of prior criminal record and his prolonged pre‑trial detention of over eight months. Balancing the seriousness of the charges against the applicant’s clean record and the uncertainties in the evidence, the court granted bail with conditions, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial despite serious charges under the IPC, SC/ST Act and POCSO Act
Whether the informant's and the minor's statements are sufficient to deny bail
Whether the applicant's lack of prior criminal history and prolonged pre‑trial detention justify granting bail

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 180, 183
Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 305A, 351(3), 65(2), 69
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5, 6
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(V)

Subjects

bail
sexual assault
IPC
SC/ST Act
POCSO
pre‑trial detention
false implication
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44530 of 2025

Rambali Pal Alias Raju Pal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manvendra Narain Pathak, Rajeev
Kumar Tiwari, Sanjay Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jyoti Kushwaha, Pramod Kumar
Pandey

Court No. - 67
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. None appeared on behalf of the informant even in the revised call.

2. Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Manoj Kumar Sinigh, learned Brief Holder, learned AGA, for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant
with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.101 of 2025,
under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 305A, 69 and 65(2) BNS, Section 3(2)(V)
SC/ST Act and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Kareli, District
Prayagraj during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent
and on the basis of false allegation he has been made accused in the
present matter.

5. He further argued that admittedly informant of the case was major and
married lady and she though made allegation of sexual harassment against
the applicant in the FIR but when her statements were recorded under
Sections 180 and 183 BNSS then she twisted the facts of the case and also
started making allegation that applicant also used to sexually harass her
minor daughter aged about nine years.

6. He next submits that prima facie allegations levelled against the
applicant are highly improbable.

7. He further submits that actually applicant and informant were in
BAIL No. 44530 of 2025
2

relationship but subsequently some dispute arose between both of them
and thereafter informant lodged FIR of the present case.

8. He further argued that after FIR informant developed new story and in
her both the statements also started making allegation of sexual
harassment of her daughter. He next submits that even the statements of
the informant prima facie appear to be improbable.

9. He further argued that apart from the present case applicant is not
having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail
since 28.6.2025, i.e., for the last more than eight months.

10. Per contra, learned AGA, although opposed the prayer for bail but
could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel
for the applicant.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the case.

12. However, there is allegation that applicant under false promise of
marriage sexually exploited the informant and he also made sexual assault
upon her minor daughter aged about nine years but allegation of sexual
assault by applicant upon minor daughter of the informant has not been
made by informant in the FIR and considering this fact the argument
advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that subsequently
informant developed new story cannot be ruled out at this stage.

13. Further, however, it reflects that even daughter of the informant in her
statement recorded during investigation stated against the applicant but
she is tender age girl and, therefore, at this stage possibility cannot be
ruled out that she under the instigation of her mother, i..e, informant
started making allegation against the applicant.

14. Further, admittedly informant is major and married lady and from the
entire material available on record she appears to be consenting party and
considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, reason
of false implication of the applicant disclosed by learned counsel for the
applicant cannot be ruled out at this stage.

15. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his
credit and in the present matter he is in jail since 28.6.2025, i.e., for the
BAIL No. 44530 of 2025
3

last more than eight months.

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
discussed above in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicant-Rambali Pal alias Raju Pal 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

(Sameer Jain,J.)
March 18, 2026
SKM

Digitally signed by :-
SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…