Dharmendra vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

Hon'Ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.

Heard Shri Chandra Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Sriram Dhar Dubey, learned counsel for the first informant and Shri B.P. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 141 of 2026, under Sections 49, 70(2), 74, 351(3) of B.N.S. and Section 5g/6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Brijmanganj, District Maharajganj, during the pendency of the trial.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case though there is no incriminating material against him. It is further submitted that the first information report has been lodged after delay of five days and there is no allegation of gang rape in the first information report. It is further submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS has stated that the applicant and three other co-accused persons committed gang rape on the victim. It is further submitted that the age of the victim has been found to be 14 years and 9 months as per certificate of Class VIII, however, there is no certificate of high school or certificate of school first attended and no radio-logical examination has been conducted for her age determination. It is further submitted that the medico legal report does not support the allegation of commission rape on her. It is further submitted that co-accused Mithun Nishad has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.27658 of 2026. It is further submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history and the applicant has been languishing in jail since 03.06.2026, in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted by them that the applicant is a minor girl aged about 14 years and 9 months as per certificate of Class VIII and the victim in her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS has categorically stated that the applicant and three other co-accused persons committed gang rape on her.

There is no allegation of rape in the FIR, which has been lodged after delay of five days alleging therein that the applicant and three other co-accused persons are said to have sexually harassed and outraged the modesty of the victim. However, the victim in her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS has stated that she was in love with one Ravi and had gone to meet him in the dead of the night of 28.05.2026, where the applicant and three other co-accused persons committed gang rape on her. It is further submitted that the age of the victim has been found to be 14 years and 9 months as per certificate of Class VIII, however, there is no certificate of high school or certificate of school first attended and no radio-logical examination has been conducted for her age determination. It is further submitted that the medico legal report does not support the allegation of commission rape on her. Co-accused Mithun Nishad has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.27658 of 2026. It is further submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history and the applicant has been languishing in jail since 03.06.2026.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Accordingly, the present application is ALLOWED.

Let the applicant- Dharmendra involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:-

The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant as well as sureties should be verified by the court concerned.

It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to ensure early release of the applicant.

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through Jail Superintendent, Mahrajganj via e-mail or e-prison portal within 24 hours in compliance of the order of the Apex Court in the case of Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685.