Allahabad High Court
LAUKUSHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
Bail was granted to the applicant on the basis of a prima facie case for bail despite the victim’s minority.
Summary
Laukush applied for bail in a case where he was charged under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) of the IPC, and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act for allegedly enticing a 14‑year‑old girl, stealing Rs 50,000 and ornaments, and being involved in a pregnancy that was later terminated. The prosecution argued that the victim was a minor and that the applicant, a person of influence, had orchestrated a medical board to conceal the pregnancy. The defence contended that the FIR was delayed, the victim was a consenting party who left home voluntarily, and that the applicant had no prior criminal record. The court examined the victim’s statement under Section 183B BNSS, the lack of prior history, and the applicant’s undertaking to cooperate, and concluded that a prima facie case for bail existed despite the victim’s minority. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, sureties, and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged under the IPC and POCSO Act when the alleged victim is a minor.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the victim’s alleged consent affect the bail decision.
- Whether the applicant’s social influence and alleged involvement in a pregnancy termination preclude bail.
Legislation cited
- Bengal Narcotic Substances Act — s. 183B
- Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 65(1), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5, 6
Subjects
- bail
- minor
- POCSO
- sexual offences
- theft
- criminal procedure
- pregnancy
- court discretion
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15275 of 2026
Laukush
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mool Chandra Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajendra Kumar, G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.27 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Mool Chandra Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Ajendra Kumar, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia,
learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.43 of 2026, under Sections 137(2),
87, 65(1) BNS and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat,
District Etah, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the
minor daughter of the informant, aged about 14 years, on 30.01.2026.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the FIR is delayed by
more than 2 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The
victim is a consenting party, as she had taken away Rs.50,000/- and
ornaments from her house. She has stated in her statement recorded under
section 183B BNSS that she does not know the applicant and she had left her
house peeved by the altercation she had with her mother, as such, the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that it is true that as
per school certificate, the victim was minor, but as per ossification test
report, her age has come out to be 15-16 years and a leverage of two years
may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. The applicant has no
BAIL No. 15275 of 2026
2
criminal history and is in jail since 08.02.2026. He undertakes to cooperate
with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law
Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the
applicant is a person carrying heavy clout in society, as he even managed the
medical examination of the victim. The doctor conducting her medical
examination opined that she was not pregnant, but after persuasion by the
informant and an order from the court concerned, a medical board was
formed, and it was found that the victim was pregnant by about twelve
weeks. The said pregnancy was also terminated at the behest of the
informant. The applicant is named in the FIR. The victim was minor as per
her Class-X school certificate. Her date of birth is 01.01.2013; as such, she
was less than 13 years old at the relevant time, and the applicant is not
entitled to bail on account of the victim's minority.
8. 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 the victim had taken away ornaments and
Rs.50,000/- cash from her house, and as per the statement of the victim
recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., she does not know the applicant and
has stated that she left her house on her own after having an altercation with
her mother, 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- Laukush, 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 6, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…