Allahabad High Court
DEEPAK SHAKYAWARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court allowed bail to the applicant, finding a prima facie case for release.
Summary
The applicant, Deepak Shakyawar, was charged under Sections 137(2) and 64(1) of the BNS Act and Sections 3 and 4(2) of the POCSO Act for an alleged offence involving a minor girl. The FIR was lodged 27 days after the alleged incident, and the victim’s statement indicated consent, noting that she had accompanied the applicant to Andhra Pradesh and later married him. The victim’s date of birth (10‑12‑2008) makes her marginally below the age of majority, but the court relied on the Supreme Court’s observation in Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar that ages of wards are often recorded lower than actual, treating her as a major for bail purposes. No medical evidence corroborated the allegation, and the applicant’s prior criminal history was explained as a related FIR filed by the victim’s mother. Without passing on the merits, the court found a prima facie case for bail and ordered the applicant’s release on personal bond and sureties with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under the BNS and POCSO statutes given the delay in filing the FIR, the victim’s alleged consent, and her age.
- Whether the victim’s age, being marginally below majority, can be treated as majority for bail considerations per Supreme Court precedent.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- delay in FIR
- victim consent
- age of minor
- POCSO Act
- BNS Act
- Supreme Court precedent
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13536 of 2026
Deepak Shakyawar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Pati Tiwari, Avdhesh Narayan
Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 27 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice
to the informant has been served on 06.04.2026 but none is present on
behalf of the informant.
2. Heard Sri Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and also perused the
material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 168 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 64(1) of BNS and Sections 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station
- Kuthaund, District - Jalaun, during the pendency of trial.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that
there is an inordinate delay of 27 days in lodging the FIR. The statement
of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS prima facie indicates her consent as
she had accompanied the applicant all the way to Andhra Pradesh and
married him. As per the High School certificate, the date of birth of the
victim is 10.12.2008, and thus, she is marginally below the age of
majority. However, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673, wherein it has been
observed that, in Indian society, the age of wards is often recorded as
lower than their actual age, she may be treated as being of majority age
for the purposes of the present consideration. Furthermore, there is no
BAIL No. 13536 of 2026
2
medical evidence on record to corroborate the alleged incident. Criminal
history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained as the said
FIR instituted against him regarding the same girl by her mother.
5. 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.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
6. Let the applicant- Deepak Shakyawar, 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.
7. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 23, 2026
Siddhant
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…