Allahabad High Court
VINOD GAUTAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and consequently granted bail.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered a bail application filed by Vinod Gautam, who was arrested in a POCSO case (Crime No. 46 of 2025) alleging sexual offences against a 15‑year‑old girl. The applicant claimed innocence, arguing that the FIR was delayed, the alleged victim was a consenting adult who had traveled with him, and there was no criminal history. The State opposed bail but did not refute the applicant’s submissions. The Court examined the purpose of the POCSO Act, the nature of consensual adolescent relationships, and the constitutional right to liberty under Article 21. Finding that the applicant had made out a case for bail, the Court ordered his release on personal bond and sureties, subject to conditions. The bail order was granted without prejudice to the trial court’s independent assessment of the merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a POCSO case where the alleged victim is a minor but claims a consensual relationship.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and lack of criminal history justify bail.
- Whether the provisions of the POCSO Act preclude bail in such circumstances.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 183
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 137(2), 65(1), 87
- Constitution of India — s. Article 21
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- consensual relationship
- minor
- sexual offences
- Article 21
- Criminal Procedure Code
- delay in FIR
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10438 of 2026
Vinod Gautam
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kalp Nath, Vivekanand
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Udisha Tripathi
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 73 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A. notice to the
informant has been served on 26.4.2026.
2. Heard Sri Kalp Nath, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Udisha
Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 as well as Sri Sunil
Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 46 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 87, 65(1) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Sujanganj,
District Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
4. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. The FIR is delayed by about three days and there is no
explanation of the said delay caused.
5. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement
recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she has stated that she had
gone all the way from her native place to Delhi with the applicant and
married him in a temple and had further travelled with him to Jammu &
Kashmir.
6. The victim, by her physical appearance, seems to be major although her
BAIL No. 10438 of 2026
2
age is 15 years as per her own statement. There is no valid document to
suggest that victim was minor. The applicant himself is a youth aged about
19 years. The matter of consensual relationship between two adolescents
have been converted to criminal case by the informant.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no
criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since
27.7.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
8. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party no.4 have
vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the
submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
CONCLUSION:
9. POCSO was formulated to protect children under the age of 18 years from
sexual exploitation. Nowadays more often than not it has become a tool for
their exploitation. The Act was never meant to criminalise consensual
romantic relationships between adolescents. However, this has to be seen
from the facts and circumstances of each case.
10. The fact of consensual relationship borne out of love should be of
consideration while granting bail because it would amount to perversity of
justice if the statement of victim was ignored and accused was left to suffer
behind jail.
11. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record
regarding complicity of the accused, the statement of victim, larger
mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view
that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is
allowed.
12. Let the applicant- Vinod Gautam, who is involved in aforementioned
BAIL No. 10438 of 2026
3
case 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
subject to verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper
with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court
as required.
13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
14. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent
opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…