Allahabad High Court
SAHIL VERMA @ MOHIT VERMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that, prima facie, the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sahil Verma (also known as Mohit Verma) in a criminal case (Crime No.210 of 2025) involving alleged offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1), 351(3) of the IPC and Sections 5L/6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed innocence, argued that the FIR was delayed by 17 days, and asserted that the alleged victim, a 15‑year‑old girl, had given consent as recorded under Section 183 BNSS. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. The Court, after examining the material and the victim’s statement, found that prima facie the applicant had a case for bail and ordered his release on personal bond and sureties, subject to standard conditions. The bail order does not prejudice the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged offences under the IPC and POCSO Act where the alleged victim has purportedly consented.
- Whether the 17‑day delay in filing the FIR is a sufficient ground to deny bail.
- Whether the minor status of the alleged victim affects the grant of bail.
- Whether the applicant’s clean criminal record warrants bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 351(3), 65(1), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 5L/6
Subjects
- bail
- consent
- POCSO Act
- minor
- IPC
- false implication
- trial
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12870 of 2026
Sahil Verma @ Mohit Verma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Praveen Kumar Soni
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.43 out of 205)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the
informant has been served on 24.04.2026, but none is present on behalf of
the informant.
2. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material
placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.210 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 87, 65(1), 351(3) BNS and Section 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station
Kotwali, District Ballia, 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. The
FIR was delayed by about 17 days, and there is no explanation for the said
delay. The victim is a consenting party, as is evident from her statement
recorded under Section 183 BNSS, wherein she has stated that she stayed
with the applicant as his wedded wife in Delhi and subsequently went with
him to Pune, Maharashtra. She has stated that she was in love with the
applicant and has expressed her willingness to stay with him only. By her
physical appearance, she seems to be major, although she is stated to be 15
years and 3 months old as per the high-school certificate, but that age has
been suppressed. The applicant is ready to take care of the victim as his
wedded wife. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since
BAIL No. 12870 of 2026
2
11.02.2026. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the
liberty of bail.
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could
not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS,
which indicates her consent, 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.
7. Let the applicant- Sahil Verma @ Mohit Verma, 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.
8. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 5, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…