Allahabad High Court
AMIT GANGWARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that no provision for compromise exists under the POCSO Act and related sexual offence laws, so the alleged settlement does not justify granting bail.
Summary
Amit Gangwar was charged under sections of the BNS Act, the POCSO Act, and the IT Act for alleged sexual offences. After two earlier bail applications were denied, he filed a third bail petition claiming the parties had settled the matter and would marry. The State opposed, highlighting that the offences fall under sexual offence statutes which do not permit compromise, and noting that indecent videos of the victim had been circulated on Instagram. The court observed that any alleged settlement could indicate the applicant's complicity and that the law provides no provision for compromise in such cases. Consequently, the bail application was rejected and the trial was directed to proceed expeditiously.
Issues considered
- Whether a settlement or proposed marriage between the accused and the victim can be a ground for granting bail in offences punishable under the POCSO Act and related statutes.
- Whether the existence of indecent videos and the non‑availability of a compromise provision under sexual offence laws preclude bail.
- Whether the applicant's lack of prior criminal record warrants bail despite the serious nature of the charges.
Legislation cited
- BNS Act — s. 64(2)M, 65(1), 69
- Information Technology Act — s. 66
- POCSO Act — s. 4(2), 5(L), 6
Subjects
- bail
- sexual offences
- POCSO Act
- settlement
- marriage
- viral video
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15564 of 2026
Amit Gangwar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vijaya Shankar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 19 out of 265)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Vijaya Shankar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Narendra Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the informant as well
as Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned AAG assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. This is the third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant seeking
bail in Case Crime No. 721 of 2024, under Sections 65(1), 64(2)M, 69
of BNS and 4(2), 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act and 66 of I.T. Act, Police Station
- Subhash Nagar, District - Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.
4. The first and second bail applications of the applicant were rejected by
this Court vide orders dated 21.3.2025 & 14.7.2025 passed in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application Nos. 4612 of 2025 and 18430 of 2025,
respectively.
5. As a new ground, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that
the parties have settled the matter and have agreed to marry each other on
07.03.2026. The eminent of the person of the locality got the matter
settled between the parties, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. The
applicant is languishing in jail since 18.12.2024, having no criminal
history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.
BAIL No. 15564 of 2026
2
6. Per contra, learned AAG assisted by learned AGA and learned counsel
for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and the further fact that
there is no provision for compromise under the sexual offences laws or
the POCSO Act, the alleged compromise, if at all, rather indicates the
complicity of the applicant. Significantly, certain indecent videos and
photographs of the victim have gone viral on Instagram. In view of these
factors, this Court does not find it a fit case to release the applicant on
bail.
8. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
9. However, the Trial Court is directed to decide the aforesaid case
expeditiously, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.
10. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and
the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case
during trial.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 7, 2026
Siddhant
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…