Allahabad High Court

NADEEMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The court held that the applicant’s claim of consent, lack of prior criminal history and willingness to marry the victim justified granting bail with specific conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Nadeem, accused in a criminal case under IPC sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) and the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed innocence, alleged that the victim, a 17‑year‑old who was pregnant, had consented to the relationship and was willing to marry him, and pointed to a two‑day delay in filing the FIR. The State Law Officer raised no objection provided the applicant married the victim and cared for the unborn child. After hearing counsel, the court found that the applicant had made out a case for bail, noting the victim’s alleged consent, the applicant’s clean record, and his willingness to comply with conditions. Bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, a requirement to marry within two months, deposit of a fixed deposit, and standard bail conditions. The order emphasized that the bail decision would not prejudice the trial judge’s independent assessment of the evidence.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged under IPC sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) and the POCSO Act when the alleged victim consents and is pregnant.
Whether the condition of marrying the victim can be imposed as a condition of bail.
Whether the two‑day delay in filing the FIR is a ground to deny bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 65(1), 87
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5J/(ii)/6

Subjects

bail
consent
POCSO
marriage condition
IPC
criminal procedure
trial
sureties

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15104 of 2026

Nadeem
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Suresh Kumar Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 23 out of 205)

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 25.4.2026.

2. Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant as
well as Sri J.K. Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the
material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 240 of 2025 and Session Case No.
715 of 2026, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) BNS, 5J/(ii)/6 POCSO Act,
Police Station Ushait, District Budaun, during the pendency of trial.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

4. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. The FIR is delayed by two days and there is no explanation of
the said delay caused.

5. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from the fact that she
has stated that she had gone with the applicant all the way to Gujarat and
stayed there and did not raise any alarm, whatsoever. She has stated that she
was pregnant.

6. The victim, by her physical appearance, seems to be major although her
age is 17 years as per ossification test report and a leverage of two years may
be granted to the applicant on the upper side.
BAIL No. 15104 of 2026
2

7. The applicant is ready to marry her and take care of her as well as the
foetus in her womb. There is no criminal history of the applicant. He is
languishing in jail since 1.2.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In
case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:

8. Learned State Law Officer has no objection if the applicant is granted bail
on the condition that he is ready to marry the victim and take care of her as
well as the foetus in her womb.

CONCLUSION:

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the fact that victim is the consenting party and that the
applicant is ready to marry the victim and take care of her as well as the
foetus and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the
Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail
application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant- Nadeem, who is involved in aforementioned case
crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to
verification of sureties, with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall marry the victim within a period of two months after his
release from jail and shall take care of the offspring born subsequently, if any.
The applicant shall deposit (Fixed Deposit) a sum of Rs. 1 lakh in the name of
victim within a period of three months from the date of his release from jail.
(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial.
(iii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

12. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent
BAIL No. 15104 of 2026
3

opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 5, 2026
Shalini

Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…