Allahabad High Court
ARVIND PASWAN @ DHAHIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that, prima facie, the applicant is entitled to bail and allowed the bail application.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Arvind Paswan @ Dhahi in a criminal case (Crime No.55 of 2025) involving alleged offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) of the B.N.S.S. and Sections 5(1) and 6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed innocence, asserted that the victim, a 20‑year‑old consenting party, travelled with him voluntarily and had not raised any alarm, and highlighted his clean record. The State and the informant opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s contentions. The court, after noting the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 indicating consent, found that prima facie the applicant had satisfied the criteria for bail. Consequently, the bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. The order emphasized that the bail does not affect the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a POCSO‑related case where the victim’s statement indicates consent.
- Whether the applicant’s claim of innocence, lack of prior criminal record, and the victim’s alleged voluntary relationship justify bail.
- Whether the presence of a statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. indicating consent influences the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 137(2), 65(1), 87
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 183
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 5(1), 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- victim consent
- criminal trial
- sureties
- Section 183
- prima facie
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14961 of 2025
Arvind Paswan @ Dhahi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Indra Deo Yadav, Jamil Ahamad Azmi,
Mohd Umar Farooq, P.K. Upadhyay,
Vikram Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Chandan Yadav, Deepesh Kumar Ojha,
G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.51 out of 243)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. The original ossification test report has been
received, and as per the said report, the victim is 20 years old.
2. Heard Sri Mohd. Umar Farooq, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Abhinav Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Deepesh Kumar Ojha,
learned counsel for the informant, 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.55 of 2025, under Sections 137(2),
87, 65(1) BNS and Section 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Reoti, District
Ballia, 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 she had travelled with the applicant all the
way to Bihar and established relationship out of her own sweet will. She did
not raise any alarm whatsoever. The applicant has no criminal history and is
in jail since 17.02.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not
misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have
vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the
BAIL No. 14961 of 2025
2
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 BNSS,
which indicates her consent, 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- Arvind Paswan @ Dhahi, 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.
9. The original ossification test report received shall be returned to the office
of the C.M.O. concerned after retaining the photostat copies of the same on
record.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 12, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…