Allahabad High Court
ARJUN PRAJAPATIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
In the absence of clinching evidence and with the victim’s statement indicating consent, the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
Arjun Prajapati applied for bail in a case registered under IPC sections 64(1) and 351(2) and POCSO Act sections 3 and 4, alleging that the alleged victim, a 19‑year‑old woman, was a consenting party and the matter stemmed from a failed consensual relationship. The applicant asserted his innocence, lack of prior criminal record, and that he had been in custody since 13 January 2026. The State opposed the bail but did not present substantive counter‑arguments. The court noted the victim’s statement recorded under CrPC section 183 indicating consent and the absence of any clinching evidence of wrongdoing. Consequently, the court found that the applicant had made out a case for bail and ordered his release on personal bond and sureties with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under IPC sections 64(1), 351(2) and POCSO Act sections 3, 4 in view of the alleged consensual relationship.
- Whether the victim’s statement under CrPC section 183 indicating consent negates the necessity for continued detention.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 351(2), 64(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- consensual relationship
- POCSO
- IPC
- section 64
- section 351
- section 183
- victim consent
- criminal trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15336 of 2026
Arjun Prajapati
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
1.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sunil Kumar Kushwaha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 56 out of 269)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Jai Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the informant 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. 5 of 2026, under Sections 64(1),
351(2) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Katera, District Jhansi,
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 she has not reported the
matter to anyone. The only allegations against the applicant is that the matter
was revealed to her husband whereupon he had expelled her from his house
and had asked her to stay with the applicant only, whereas the applicant
himself had refused to take care of her. The matter of failed consensual
relationship between two adults has been converted to criminal case by the
informant. The victim is 19 years old as per ossification test report.
Applicant himself is 19 years old youth.
BAIL No. 15336 of 2026
2
5. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing
in jail since 13.1.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the
applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
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 statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, whereby
she seems to be consenting party and there being no clinching evidence to
suggest that the applicant misled the victim from the beginning 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- Arjun Prajapati, 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…