Allahabad High Court
RAVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and granted it.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ravi, who was arrested in connection with Crime No. 95 of 2025 under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) of the B.N.S.S. and Sections 3/4(ii) of the POCSO Act. The applicant pleaded innocence, asserting that the alleged victim, a minor aged 14-15, had travelled with him voluntarily and gave a statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. indicating consent, with no medical evidence to corroborate the offence. The State opposed the bail but did not present substantive counter‑arguments. After evaluating the lack of medical proof, the victim’s statement, and the applicant’s clean record, the Court concluded that the applicant had established a sufficient case for bail. Consequently, the Court ordered his release on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of non‑tampering with evidence, non‑intimidation of witnesses, and regular appearance before the trial court.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a POCSO case where the alleged victim is a minor but claims consent.
- Whether the absence of medical corroboration and the victim’s statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. justify bail.
- Whether the applicant’s personal history and willingness to cooperate affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- consent
- minor
- medical evidence
- sureties
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15285 of 2026
Ravi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhishek Kumar Dwivedi, Pramod
Kumar Pandey, Pratima Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 52 out of 269)
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 1.5.2026.
2. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as
well as Sri A.K. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 95 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 87, 65(1) BNSS and 3/4(ii) POCSO Act, Police Station Sandeepan
Ghat, District Kaushambi, 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 victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her
statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she had travelled
with the applicant and stayed in Punjab for more than one month and did not
raise any alarm, whatsoever. There is no medical corroboration of the
incident. The victim, by her physical appearance, seems to be major
although her age is 14-15 years as per ossification test report.
5. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing
in jail since 13.2.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the
applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
BAIL No. 15285 of 2026
2
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
6. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by
counsel for the applicant has not been opposed.
CONCLUSION:
7. 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 there is no medical corroboration of the incident
and 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.
8. Let the applicant- Ravi, 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.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. 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 14, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…