Bail granted where delayed FIR, uncertain age proof, and medical evidence weakened the rape allegations.

The applicant, Dharmendra, sought bail in Case Crime No. 141 of 2026, Police Station Brijmanganj, District Maharajganj, registered under Sections 49, 70(2), 74 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and three co-accused persons sexually harassed and outraged the modesty of a minor girl. The FIR was lodged after a delay of five days and did not allege rape; however, in statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, the victim alleged that the accused persons had committed gang rape upon her.

The applicant challenged the prosecution case on the grounds of delay, absence of a rape allegation in the FIR, uncertainty regarding the victim’s age, lack of radiological examination, and the medico-legal report allegedly not supporting rape. He also relied on the bail granted to co-accused Mithun Nishad, absence of criminal antecedents, and his detention since 3 June 2026.

The State and the first informant opposed bail, relying principally on the victim’s minority and her subsequent statements alleging gang rape.

1. Whether the applicant should be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial, considering the nature of the accusations, the victim’s statements, the statutory offences invoked, and the defence objections concerning delay, age, and medical evidence.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to parity with co-accused Mithun Nishad, who had already been granted bail, along with consideration of his lack of criminal history and period of incarceration.

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 49, 70(2), 74 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 5(g)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

In determining bail, it applied the established principles requiring consideration of the nature and gravity of the offence, the prosecution evidence, the accused’s alleged complicity, criminal antecedents, period of custody, likelihood of interference with the trial, and the possibility of delay in proceedings.

The Court relied on Kapil Wadhawan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038, concerning the constitutional and practical considerations relevant to bail, and Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 6765, concerning guidelines for grant of bail.

The Court acknowledged the prosecution’s case that the victim was approximately 14 years and 9 months old and that her statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS alleged gang rape by the applicant and three co-accused persons.

At the same time, it considered the applicant’s submissions that the FIR, lodged after five days, contained no allegation of rape; that the victim’s age was supported only by a Class VIII certificate; that no radiological examination had been conducted; and that the medico-legal report did not support the allegation of rape.

The Court also took into account the grant of bail to co-accused Mithun Nishad, the applicant’s lack of criminal history, and the period already spent in custody.

Balancing these factors with the nature of the accusations, the evidence and alleged complicity, prison overcrowding, and the heavy pendency of criminal trials, the Court concluded—without expressing an opinion on the merits—that the applicant was entitled to bail.

The conditions required him not to threaten or induce witnesses or tamper with evidence, to cooperate sincerely in the investigation and trial without seeking adjournments, not to commit any offence after release, and to attend court in accordance with the bond conditions.

Breach of any condition was made a ground for cancellation of bail.

The trial court was directed to verify the identity, status, residence, mobile number and Aadhaar details of the applicant and sureties, and to transmit the release order through the Bail Order Management System to facilitate early release.