Allahabad High Court
LAKSHMAN KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that, prima facie, the applicant had made out a case for bail and consequently granted bail.
Summary
Lakshman Kumar was charged under sections 137(2), 87 and 64(2)(m) of the BNS Act and sections 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act for an alleged offence in Chandauli. The FIR was lodged eleven days after the incident. The victim’s statement recorded under section 183 of the BNSS suggested consent, and her school certificate showed she was 17 years, 11 months and 28 days old, just short of the age of majority, but the court held that the document could not be relied upon under section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act. No medical evidence supported the allegation. After hearing counsel, the court found that, prima facie, the applicant had made out a case for bail and therefore allowed the bail application, subject to a personal bond, two sureties and 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 at the time of the incident.
- Whether the victim’s school certificate can be used to establish minority under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Legislation cited
- Bengal Narcotic... (BNSS) — s. 183
- BNS Act — s. 137(2), 64(2)(m), 87
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act — s. 94
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 5(l), 6
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- POCSO
- juvenile justice
- delay in FIR
- consent
- evidence
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14126 of 2026
Lakshman Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajeev Pushkar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 24 out of 265)
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 29.04.2026 but none is present on
behalf of the informant.
2. Heard Sri Rajeev Pushkar, 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. 17 of 2026, under Sections
137(2), 87, 64(2)(m) of BNS and Sections 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act, Police
Station - Chandauli, District - Chandauli, during the pendency of trial.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that
there is an inordinate delay of eleven 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 to several places without
raising any alarm whatsoever. The Class 8 school certificate records her
date of birth as 10.01.2008, placing her age at 17 years, 11 months, and
28 days on the date of the incident just three days short of majority
however, this document cannot be relied upon as per Section 94 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act. No other valid evidence
establishes her minority at the relevant time. Furthermore, no medical
evidence corroborates the alleged incident.
BAIL No. 14126 of 2026
2
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- Lakshman Kumar, 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.)
May 7, 2026
Siddhant
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…