Dismissed

Balram Pandey Urf Baliram Pandey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2026BAIL/34286/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an applicant’s prayer for bail in a POCSO case involving the alleged rape of an eight-year-old girl. It relied on the victim’s statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS and the medical examination report indicating inflammation of the labia. The trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was rejected. The trial court was directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible.

Balram Pandey Urf Baliram Pandey Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34286 of 2025

¶2

Balram Pandey Urf Baliram Pandey

¶3

.....Applicant(s)

¶4

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Mahendra Pal Singh Kumar Pandey	Gaur, Prabhat
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Manoj Kumar

¶5

Court No. - 66

¶6

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

¶7

Heard Sri Saurabh Raj, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mahendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 335 of 2025, under Sections 65 (2) BNS and 5M/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Gagaha, DistrictGorakhpur.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case though there is allegation of committing rape upon the victim, who is 8 year old girl but medical report of the victim does not show any mark of injury or sign of sexual assault. Therefore, the applicant has been falsely implicated because of prior enmity between the applicant and father of the victim. Charge sheet has been filed by the police, therefore, there is no requirement for custodial interrogation. The applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 07.06.2025. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that victim girl made specific allegation in her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS against the applicant for penetrative sexual

¶11

BAIL No. 34286 of 2025

¶12

¶13

assault and on crying her, she was left by the accused. This fact was also duly substantiated by the medical examination report of the victim which shows labia majora inflamed and labia minora, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the statements of victim under Section 180 and 183 BNSS as well as medical examination report of the victim, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

¶15

Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected .

¶16

However, trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible in view of direction of the Apex Court in the case of Liakat Ali vs state of Jammu and Kashmir passed in Writ Petition (Crl) No.99 of 2026 decided on 16.07.2026.

¶17

September 18, 2026 A.Kr.

¶18

(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)

¶19

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

Balram Pandey Urf Baliram Pandey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balram Pandey Urf Baliram Pandey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases