Allahabad High Court
ABHISHEK RAIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court granted bail to the applicant, finding a prima facie case for release.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Abhishek Rai, who was charged under several IPC provisions and sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act for alleged indecent photography of a minor. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, that no indecent photograph was recovered, and highlighted an eleven‑month delay in filing the FIR and a further eleven‑day delay in the alleged last incident. The State opposed bail, but the court noted the lack of material evidence, the significant procedural delay, and the applicant’s clean record. Citing Supreme Court precedents on false age representation, the court held that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions of non‑tampering and appearance before the trial court.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite charges under the POCSO Act and IPC provisions
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the alleged incident affects bail eligibility
- Whether the absence of an indecent photograph on record negates the prima facie case
- Whether the age of the alleged victim, as per school certificate, impacts the bail decision
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 191(2), 351(2), 352, 64(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- POCSO Act
- delay in FIR
- age of victim
- indecent photograph
- prima facie case
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12739 of 2025
Abhishek Rai
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar Yadav, Namit Srivastava,
Sarthak Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Prem Shankar Sharma
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.99 out of 277)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Compliance affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is
taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil
Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.13 of 2025, under Sections 64(1),
115(2), 352, 351(2), 191(2) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station
Sakaldeeha, District Chandauli, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
There is nothing on record to suggest that applicant made viral any indecent
photograph of the victim. There is only one photograph on record in which
vermilion is seen on the forehead of the victim, which is not an indecent
photograph.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the FIR itself is
delayed by about eleven months and as far as the last occurrence is
concerned it is delayed by about eleven days and there is no explanation of
the said delay caused. The victim by her looks seems to be major, although
she is stated to be marginally less than the age of majority as per the school
certificate. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since
BAIL No. 12739 of 2025
2
28.2.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the
liberty of bail.
6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but the
submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be
disputed.
7. The Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC
673 has stated that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows
the age of their wards much below than their actual age. In the case of Brij
Mohan Singh vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, AIR 1965 SC 282, this Court,
inter alia, observed that in actual life it often happens that persons give false
age of the boy at the time of his admission to a school so that later in life he
would have an advantage when seeking public service for which a minimum
age for eligibility is often prescribed.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the inordinate delay in institution of FIR and also there being
no recovery of any indecent photograph of the victim by the Investigating
Officer, 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.
9. Let the applicant- Abhishek Rai, 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.
10. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 20, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…