Allahabad High Court
SONU MALIKversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court granted bail to the applicant, finding that he had made out a case for bail on prima facie grounds.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sonu Malik, who was charged under Sections 65(1), 137(2) of the Indian Penal Code, the 2023 provision, and Sections 3 and 4(2) of the POCSO Act for allegedly abducting and raping the minor daughter of an informant. The prosecution alleged that the accused lured the girl to a hotel and committed rape, while the defence argued that the victim’s statements were inconsistent, that she appeared to have consented, and that the alleged abduction was a personal vendetta by the informant. The court noted the lack of a clear date and time of the alleged elopement in the FIR, the vacillating statements of the victim, and the absence of any alarm raised by the victim during the alleged incident. Weighing the prima facie nature of the case, the applicant’s clean record, and the possibility of the victim being a consenting adolescent, the court found sufficient grounds to grant bail. Accordingly, the court ordered the release of Sonu Malik on personal bond and sureties, subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations under the POCSO Act and IPC warrant denial of bail.
- Whether the victim’s statements and alleged consent affect the prima facie case for bail.
- Whether the seriousness of the offences and the applicant’s personal circumstances justify bail during trial.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 2023, 65(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4(2)
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- kidnapping
- rape
- consent
- minor
- criminal procedure
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14013 of 2026
Sonu Malik
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pankaj Kumar Tyagi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.85 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Learned State Law Officer has informed that the
notice to the informant has been served on 20.04.2026, but none is present
on behalf of the informant.
2. Heard Ms. Sujata Chaudhary, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Kumar
Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law
Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.119 of 2026, under Sections 65(1),
137(2) BNS, 2023 and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Jani,
District Meerut, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have abducted the
minor daughter of the informant and had come back to drop her at the
village, whereby he was apprehended by the public at large and was given a
good beating. The victim told the informant that the applicant had enticed
her away, taken her to a hotel, and committed rape with her. The informant
had taken the victim as well as the applicant to the police station on
27.02.2026.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the date and time of
elopement of the victim is not mentioned in the FIR. The statement of the
victim is vacillating at different stages. Even the modus operandi and the
name of the vehicle has not been mentioned by the victim in her statement
BAIL No. 14013 of 2026
2
recorded under Section 180 BNSS and in her statement recorded under
Section 183 BNSS, she has stated that the applicant took her in a Wagon R
car which was driven by his friend. The victim is a consenting party, as she
has not raised any alarm during the said sojourn and the stay at the hotel.
Even there is a statement of the owner, Jatin, of Pradhanji Restaurant,
whereby the applicant had taken the victim, and the said owner has
categorically stated that the applicant had taken her to a room and both of
them stayed there, which indicates that she was a consenting party. Had the
applicant abducted her, she would have raised alarm there and then only.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant has
been beaten up out of vengeance by the informant, as he could not bear the
said fact of victim having gone with him. The victim, by her looks, seems to
be major, although as per high school certificate, her date of birth is
03.05.2011, but the said age has been deliberately suppressed. The applicant
himself is a youth, aged about 22 years old. A matter of consensual
relationship between two adolescents has been converted into a criminal case
by the informant out of vengeance. The applicant has no criminal history
and is in jail since 27.02.2026. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and
not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application
but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration that the victim appears to be a consenting party, as she did not
raise any alarm during the sojourn in the car and also stay at the hotel, 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- Sonu Malik, 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.
BAIL No. 14013 of 2026
3
10. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…