Allahabad High Court
AKASH @ RAJ DHURIYAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted to the accused as he had made out a case for bail under the circumstances.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Akash @ Raj Dhuriya, a 19‑year‑old accused under sections 137(2), 87, 65(2) of the IPC and sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act for an alleged sexual offence involving a 16‑year‑old girl. The applicant contended that the relationship was consensual, that the girl appeared to be a major and that there was no reliable documentary proof of her minority, and that he had no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. The Court examined the victim’s statement recorded under section 183 of the POCSO Act, noting the claim of consent, and considered the purpose of the POCSO Act vis‑à‑vis consensual adolescent relationships. Finding that the applicant had made out a case for bail and that the circumstances did not warrant continued detention, the Court granted bail subject to personal bond and sureties. The order emphasized that the bail decision would not prejudice the trial court’s independent assessment of the evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused under the POCSO Act when the alleged offence involves a consensual relationship between adolescents.
- Whether the victim’s age and consent can be established sufficiently to affect the bail decision.
- Whether the provisions of the IPC sections 137(2), 87, 65(2) BNS and POCSO Act preclude bail in the present facts.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 65(2) BNS, 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5, 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- consensual relationship
- minor
- adolescent
- criminal procedure
- sexual offence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15185 of 2026
Akash @ Raj Dhuriya
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhijeet Pratap Singh, Praveen Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 2 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice to the informant has
been served on 27.4.2026.
2. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri
Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 484 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87,
65(2) BNS and 5m/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Rasulpur, District Firozabad, 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 case of consensual
relationship between two adolescents has been converted to criminal case by the
informant. The victim is the consenting party as far as the statement of the victim
recorded u/s 183 is concerned, as she has stated that she had gone with the applicant
all the way to Agra and thereafter, to Lucknow.
5. Learned counsel has next stated that the victim, by her physical appearance, seems
to be major although in her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS, she has stated her age
to be 16 years and her date of birth as per Class IV certificate is 8.10.2008, which has
no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. There is no valid document to suggest that
victim was minor. The applicant himself is 19 years old youth.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history
of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.10.2025 and he is ready
BAIL No. 15185 of 2026
2
to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail.
7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute
the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
8. POCSO was formulated to protect children under the age of 18 years from sexual
exploitation. Nowadays, more often than not it has become a tool for their
exploitation. The Act was never meant to criminalise consensual romantic
relationships between adolescents. However, this has to be seen from the facts and
circumstances of each case. The factum of consensual relationship borne out of love
should be of consideration while granting bail because it would amount to perversity
of justice if the statement of victim was ignored and accused was left to suffer behind
jail.
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 statement
of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, whereby she seems to be consenting party 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- Akash @ Raj Dhuriya, 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 condition that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate
witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.
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 opinion based on the
testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…