Allahabad High Court
JAHIDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court granted bail to the accused, finding that the bail application was made out on a prima facie basis.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Jahid, who was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 137(2), 127(2), 70(2) of the IPC and Sections 5G/6 of the POCSO Act, alleging sexual activity with a girl who was reportedly under 17. The applicant contended that the relationship was consensual, that the girl had initially admitted a year‑long relationship, and that there was no medical evidence of injury; he also argued that his criminal history was explained. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the POCSO charges and the alleged minority of the victim. The Court observed that bail cannot be denied merely on the basis of past criminal antecedents and noted the absence of medical corroboration, the victim’s changing statements, and the applicant’s willingness to cooperate. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail on a prima facie basis. The bail was granted subject to a personal bond, sureties, and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a POCSO case where the alleged victim is a minor but claims consensual relationship and there is no medical evidence.
- Whether the accused's prior criminal history precludes the grant of bail.
- Whether the victim's age and the nature of the alleged consent affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 127(2), 137(2), 70(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 5G, 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- minor
- consent
- criminal antecedents
- medical evidence
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15153 of 2026
Jahid
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohammad Zakir
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.32 out of 205)
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 Sri Mohammad Zakir, 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.05 of 2026, under Sections 137(2),
127(2), 70(2) BNS and Section 5G/6 POCSO Act, Police Station
Jahangirpur, District Bulandshahr, 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 gone with the applicant to the tube-
well of the co-accused, Arjun. The said co-accused, Arjun, is stated to have
bolted the gate of the tube-well, and the applicant and Jahid were found
locked inside by the villagers. A matter of a consensual relationship has been
converted into a criminal case by the informant owing to the different
communities of the two parties.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the victim had
admitted that she was in a relationship with the applicant for about one year
in the statement given before the doctor conducting her medical
BAIL No. 15153 of 2026
2
examination, but subsequently, the version was changed after tutoring in the
statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS, as an
afterthought. There is no medical corroboration of the incident, as the victim
has not sustained any injury whatsoever. The victim is marginally less than
17 years old as per the Class X school certificate, but, by her physical
appearance, she appears to be major. The criminal history assigned to the
applicant stands explained. The applicant is in jail since 09.01.2026 and he
undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application
but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
7. This Court is of the view that if a case for bail is otherwise made out, an
accused cannot be kept incarcerated solely on account of his criminal
antecedents. In the instant case, the criminal history attributed to the
applicant has been properly explained.
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 there is no medical corroboration of the incident, 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- Jahid, 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.
10. 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…