Allowed¶18

Rahul Kumar Bharti v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 May 2026BAIL/23158/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Krishan Pahal, J.) grants bail in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 23158 of 2025 (Case Crime No. 225 of 2024, P.S. Gulhariha, Gorakhpur) under IPC Ss. 363, 376(2)(n) and POCSO Ss. 5/6; reliance on victim's consent in statement under S. 183 BNSS; age/minority disputed via Class-VIII mark sheet (DOB 03.03.2008); applicant in custody since 24.03.2024; release on personal bond and two sureties with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted: applicant to be released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and to appear before the trial court as required; breach to entail cancellation. ¶18

Rahul Kumar Bharti Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Rahul Kumar Bharti, is entitled to be released on bail in Case Crime No.225 of 2024 under Sections 363, 376, (2)N IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Gulhariha, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶11

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, submissions of counsel, the evidence on record and the victim's statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS indicating her consent, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held that prima facie the applicant had made out a case for bail and allowed the bail application.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The applicant Rahul Kumar Bharti was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, on conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.

¶18

Key takeaways

Breach of any condition of bail shall entail its cancellation, and the observations made in the judgment shall not affect the trial on merits.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail allowed — Case Crime No.225 of 2024, P.S. Gulhariha, District Gorakhpur, under Sections 363, 376, (2)N IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act. Defence contended the victim was a consenting party who stayed with the applicant willingly; per her Class-VIII mark sheet her date of birth was 03.03.2008, making her marginally over 16 years, and no valid document established minority. The Court took into account the victim's statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, which indicated her consent, and held that prima facie the applicant, in jail since 24.03.2024 with no criminal history, had made out a case for bail, expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits. Released on a personal bond and two sureties, subject to verification, with conditions against tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses and requiring appearance before the trial court; breach to entail cancellation; observations not to affect the trial on merits.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23158 of 2025

¶3

Rahul Kumar Bharti

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) :	Sandeep Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 65

¶7

(Sr. No.102 out of 243)

¶8

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶9

List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 26.06.2025, but none is present on behalf of the informant.

¶10

Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶11

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.225 of 2024, under Sections 363, 376, (2)N IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Gulhariha, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is a consenting party, as she had gone to the house of the applicant, stayed with him, and expressed her willingness to stay with the applicant only, as she loved him. As per the mark sheet of Class-VIII, the date of birth of the victim was 03.03.2008; as such, she was marginally more than 16 years old, but by her physical appearance, she appears to be major. There is no valid document to suggest that she was minor. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 24.03.2024. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could

¶14

BAIL No. 23158 of 2025

¶15

¶16

not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS, which indicates her consent, 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 .

¶18

Let the applicant- Rahul Kumar Bharti , 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.

¶19

Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.

¶20

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶21

May 12, 2026

¶22

(Ravi Kant)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Kumar Bharti v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar Bharti v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paras Singh Chauhan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jeeshan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Viraj @ Golu vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rohit Soni Alias Punnu Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Baghel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Utkarsh Jaiswal Vs State of U.P.