ANKIT @ NIKHILversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12975 of 2026

Ankit @ Nikhil
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Sunit Kumar, Yatish Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sl. No.4 out of 277)

                        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 9.4.2026.

2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken
on record.

3. Heard Sri Sunit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri
Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed
on record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 3 of 2026, under Sections 65(1),
351(2), 352, 131 BNS and 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Kailiya, District
Jalaun, during the pendency of trial.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded
under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whatsoever. The case of consensual relationship
has been converted to that of criminal case by the informant. There is no
medical corroboration of the incident as the victim has denied her medical
examination. The victim, by her physical appearance, seems to be major
although her age is 15 years and 3 months as per school certificate but the
said document cannot be taken into consideration. There is no valid
document to suggest that she is minor. The applicant himself is a youth of 20
                                                                 BAIL No. 12975 of 2026
                                    2


years.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no
criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since
21.1.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could
not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.

8. Speaking on consensual relationships being criminalised, the Supreme
Court in its recent judgment STATE OF U.P. VS. ANURUDH & ANR.
reported in 2026 INSC 47 has stated in Para-19 as follows:

     “19. As the conclusions drawn above indicate the impugned judgment and
     order of the High Court has to be set aside on grounds of transgression of
     the jurisdiction present and thereby lacking the appropriate directions. It
     is to be set aside also because it goes against the statutory prescription
     under the JJ Act. Be that as it may, this Court has not lost sight of the
     well-intentioned purport of this order. The POCSO Act is one of the most
     solemn articulations of justice aimed at protecting the children of today
     and the leaders of tomorrow. Yet, when an instrument of such noble and
     one may even say basic good intent is misused, misapplied and used as a
     tool for exacting revenge, the notion of justice itself teeters on the edge of
     inversion. Courts have in many cases sounded alarm regarding this
     situation. Misuse of the POCSO Act highlights a grim societal chasm - on
     the one end children are silenced by fear and their families are
     constrained by poverty or stigma, meaning thereby that justice remains
     distant and uncertain, and on the other hand, those equipped with
     privilege, literacy, social and monetary capital are able to manipulate the
     law to their advantage. The impugned judgment is one amongst many
     where Courts have spoken out. Not only are instances rife where the age
     of the victim is misrepresented to make the incident fall under the
     stringent provisions of this law but also there are numerous instances
     where this law is used by families in opposition to relationships between
     young people. In Satish alias Chand v. State of U.P. Crl. Misc. Bail Appl.
     No. 18596 of 2024, the High Court, noted that on few occasions concern
                                                         BAIL No. 12975 of 2026
                              3


had been expressed by the Court with respect to application of the Act on
consenting adolescence when it comes to consensual relationships
between teenagers, four factors have been highlighted which, is crucial
for the Courts to consider:

      “A. Assess the Context: Each case should be evaluated on its
      individual facts and circumstances. The nature of the
      relationship and the intentions of both parties should be
      carefully examined.
      B. Consider Victim's Statement: The statement of the alleged
      victim should be given due consideration. If the relationship
      is consensual and based on mutual affection, this should be
      factored into decisions regarding bail and prosecution.
      C. Avoid Perversity of Justice: Ignoring the consensual
      nature of a relationship can lead to unjust outcomes, such as
      wrongful imprisonment. The judicial system should aim to
      balance the protection of minors with the recognition of their
      autonomy in certain contexts. Here the age comes out to be
      an important factor.
      D. Judicial Discretion: Courts should use their discretion
      wisely, ensuring that the application of POCSO does not
      inadvertently harm the very individuals it is meant to
      protect.”

[See also: Mrigraj Gautam @ Rippu v. State of U.P.] 2023:AHC:204171

The Delhi High Court in Sahil v. the State NCT of Delhi
2024:DHC:6100 the Court noted in para 11 of the order that POCSO
cases filed at the behest of a girl’s family objecting to romantic
involvement with a young boy have become common place and
consequent thereto these young boys languish in jails. Therein, reference
is also made to an order of the Gujarat High Court (Jayantibhai
Babulbhai Alani v. State of Gujarat 2018 SCC Online Guj. 1223), where
the Court noted that considering the closeness in age of the prosecutrix
and the accused as also the fact that she had left home of her own accord
observed that the application deserved consideration.
                                                                                              BAIL No. 12975 of 2026
                                                                     4


                                    9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
                                    learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
                                    consideration the fact that there is no medical corroboration of the incident
                                    and the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, whereby she seems
                                    to be consenting party 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.

                                    10. Let the applicant- Ankit @ Nikhil, who is involved in aforementioned
                                    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.

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

                                    12. 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.)
                                    April 20, 2026
                                    Shalini




Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad