Allahabad High Court
SRAWAN KUMAR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application is dismissed as the court found no merit to grant bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Srawan Kumar Singh in a case under IPC sections 65(2), 352, 351(3) and the POCSO Act for alleged sexual assault of an eight‑year‑old girl. The applicant claimed the allegations were false and that the informant had extorted Rs 1 lakh, asserting lack of medical corroboration. The State produced a medical report showing injuries to the victim’s vital parts, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and the victim’s tender age. After evaluating the evidence, the Court held that the case was not suitable for bail and rejected the application as devoid of merit. The order also directed the trial court to expedite the trial, noting that the bail decision does not prejudice the trial’s merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under IPC sections 65(2), 352, 351(3) and the POCSO Act given the nature of the alleged offence and the victim’s age.
- Whether the applicant’s claim of false allegations and lack of medical evidence is sufficient to justify bail.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of misusing liberty or interfering with the investigation.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 351(3), 352, 65(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 5(m)(F), 6
Subjects
- bail
- sexual assault
- child victim
- POCSO Act
- medical evidence
- false allegations
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15184 of 2026
Srawan Kumar Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pramod Kumar Yadav, Randhir Jain
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 43 out of 269)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice
has been served to the informant on 2.5.2026.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken
on record.
3. Heard Sri Ashish Pandey, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri
Pramod Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sanjeev Singh,
learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar, learned
State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.
4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime
No.215 of 2025, under Sections 65(2), 352, 351(3) BNS and 5(m)(F)/6
POCSO Act, Police Station Shrirampur, District Deoria, with the prayer to
enlarge him on bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the allegations are per se
false. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The truth is that
informant had taken Rs.1 lakh from the applicant, as her husband was going
abroad and she has falsely implicated the applicant to usurp the said amount,
as such, the applicant is entitled for bail.
6. The applicant is in jail since 24.11.2025 and is ready to cooperate with
trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty
BAIL No. 15184 of 2026
2
of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
7. The medical report of the victim corroborates the prosecution story as she
has sustained injuries on her vital part.
CONCLUSION:
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the injuries sustained on the vital parts of the body of victim and she being a
girl of tender age i.e. 8 years, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the
applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly,
rejected.
9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously as early as possible, if there is no legal
impediment.
10. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
11. The Registrar Compliance is directed to transmit a copy of this order
to the trial court concerned for necessary compliance.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 14, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…