Allahabad High Court
DEVI SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court allowed bail, finding that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for release despite the POCSO charges.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Devi Singh, who was charged under Sections 137(2) and 65(1) of the BNS and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, for allegedly having a sexual relationship with a 17‑year‑old girl who was pregnant. The applicant contended that the relationship was consensual, the girl appeared to be a major, and the ossification test used to determine her age could be erroneous by up to two years. The State opposed bail but did not object to the applicant marrying the victim and caring for the child. The Court held that the applicant’s criminal antecedents were explained and, on a prima facie basis, bail was appropriate despite the seriousness of the charges. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, a condition to marry the victim within three months, and a requirement to deposit Rs.1 lakh for the child’s future.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused charged under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 when the alleged victim is a minor but claims consent.
- Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents preclude the grant of bail.
- Whether the age of the victim, as determined by ossification test, can be contested for bail purposes.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 137(2), 65(1)
- POCSO Act, 2012 — s. 5, 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- consent
- minor
- age determination
- marriage condition
- surety
- criminal antecedents
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15418 of 2026
Devi Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dev Prakash Sharma, Priyanka Devi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.65 out of 269)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Ms. Priyanka Devi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vikesh
Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh,
learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.15 of 2026, under Sections 137(2),
65(1) BNS and 5/6 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Kotwali Mahoba,
District Mahoba, 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
victim is a consenting party, as she had gone with the applicant all the way
to Haryana and established corporeal relationship with him. By her physical
appearance, she seems to be major, although she is 17 years old as per
ossification test report. In view of the inherent margin of error in such tests,
it is urged that a leverage of two years on the upper side may be granted to
the applicant while determining the age of the victim.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the victim was
found pregnant at an advanced stage of about 7 months at the time of
recovery. She has categorically stated that she wants to live with the
applicant and not go with her parents. The applicant himself is a youth aged
about 24 years. A matter of consensual relationship between two adolescents
has been converted into a criminal one by the informant. The applicant is
BAIL No. 15418 of 2026
2
ready to marry the victim and take care of her and the child born to her. The
criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. The
applicant is in jail since 20.02.2026 and he undertakes to cooperate with the
trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently
opposed the bail application and have stated that they have no objection if
the applicant is ready to marry the victim and take care of her and the child
born to her.
7. This Court is of the view that if a case for bail is otherwise made out, an
accused cannot be kept incarcerated solely on account of his criminal
antecedents. In the instant case, the criminal history attributed to the
applicant has been properly explained.
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 statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS
and the fact that the applicant is ready to marry the victim and take care of
her and the child born to her, 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- Devi Singh, 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. The applicant shall marry the victim within three
months and deposit (fixed deposit) Rs.1 lakh in the name of the child
under the guardianship of his/her mother till attaining the age of
majority, within a period of six months from the date of his release from
jail or from the date of delivery of the victim, whichever is later.
10. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 14, 2026/(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…