Allahabad High Court
VINOD JATversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail and therefore granted bail.
Summary
The applicant, Vinod Jat, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 643 of 2024) involving alleged offences under Sections 137(2), 65(1), 87 of the B.N.S.S. and Sections 5L/6 of the POCSO Act. He claimed absolute innocence, arguing that the alleged victim, who had recorded a statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S., was a consenting adult who had left her family, married the applicant, and was willing to stay with him. The victim’s age was contested; an ossification test suggested she was 15‑16 years old, but the test was deemed unreliable. The applicant had no prior criminal record and had been in custody since 20‑03‑2026. The court, after considering the statements, the lack of opposition on factual points, and the prima facie case for bail, granted bail subject to personal bond, sureties, and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 137(2), 65(1), 87 of the B.N.S.S. and Sections 5L/6 of the POCSO Act pending trial.
- Whether the victim’s consent, as recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., negates the seriousness of the alleged offences.
- Whether the alleged minor’s age, based on an unreliable ossification test, affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 137(2), 183, 65(1), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 5L, 6
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- POCSO Act
- consent
- minor
- trial
- sureties
- court order
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13865 of 2026
Vinod Jat
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hari Narayan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vijay Kumar
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.47 out of 205)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Hari Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the informant, Ms. Anjali Singh, learned
counsel for the High Court Legal Service Committee, Sri Rajendra Prasad
Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material
placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.643 of 2024, under Sections
137(2), 65(1), 87 BNS and Section 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Cantt,
District Gorakhpur, 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
victim is a consenting party as far as her statement recorded under Section
183 BNSS is concerned. She has stated that she was mistreated by her family
members and, due to the said harassment, she had left the house on
13.11.2024 at about 5:00 p.m. and reached Rajasthan, where she met the
applicant and started loving him; as such, both had married each other, and
she has expressed her willingness to stay with the applicant only. The victim
has married the applicant; obviously, she was major, although, as per the
ossification test report, she is 15–16 years old. The said test is not a reliable
document to establish the age of the victim. The applicant has no criminal
history and is in jail since 20.03.2026. He undertakes to cooperate with the
BAIL No. 13865 of 2026
2
trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have 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
B.N.S.S., 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- Vinod Jat, 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…