Allahabad High Court
UPENDRA PASWANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
Since the victim’s statement indicated consent and the applicant established a prima facie case for bail, the court granted bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Upendra Paswan, who was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 351(3) of the B.N.S., 67 of the Income Tax Act and Sections 13 and 14 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed that the alleged offence stemmed from a consensual relationship between two adolescents, that the victim had married him and expressed willingness to stay with him, and that her age had been deliberately misrepresented. The State opposed bail, alleging that the applicant had sent photographs of the victim to her former groom, constituting an offence. The Court examined the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S., which indicated her consent, and, without passing on the merits, held that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, sureties and standard conditions. The order emphasized that any breach would lead to cancellation of bail and would not affect the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite charges under Sections 351(3) B.N.S., 67 Income Tax Act and 13/14 POCSO Act.
- Whether the victim’s consent, as recorded under Section 183 B.N.S., negates the seriousness of the alleged offence for bail purposes.
- Whether the alleged false age of the victim impacts the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 351(3)
- Income Tax Act — s. 67
- POCSO Act — s. 13, 14
Subjects
- bail
- consent
- false age
- criminal procedure
- Section 351 B.N.S.
- Income Tax Act
- POCSO Act
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19225 of 2026
Upendra Paswan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Kumar Mishra, Sudhir Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohd Umar Farooq
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.106.1 out of 131)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Two rejoinder affidavits filed today are taken on
record.
2. Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Mohd. Umar Farooq, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Abhishek
Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.63 of 2025, under Sections 351(3)
B.N.S., 67 I.T. Act and 13/14 P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police Station Bansdih,
District Ballia, 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. He
has nothing to do with the said offence. A matter of a consensual
relationship between two adolescents has been converted into a criminal case
by the informant out of vengeance. The victim is a consenting party, as is
evident from the fact that she has married the applicant and has expressed
her willingness to stay with the applicant only. The said marriage was
registered before the Registrar of Marriages, Ballia, on 07.08.2025, and the
date of birth mentioned in the said marriage certificate is 05.08.2007. The
said marriage certificate mentions that the marriage between the couple was
solemnized on 13.07.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the victim, by
BAIL No. 19225 of 2026
2
her looks, seems to be major, and her age has been deliberately suppressed.
The applicant is in jail since 05.02.2026, 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 on the ground that the applicant has committed
the said offence, as he had sent the photographs of the victim to the erstwhile
groom of the victim. As such, he is not entitled to bail.
7. The Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC
673 has stated that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows
the age of their wards much below than their actual age. It is also settled by
Supreme Court that as per the medical records, a leverage of two years may
be granted to the accused person. In the case of Brij Mohan Singh vs. Priya
Brat Narain Sinha, AIR 1965 SC 282, this Court, inter alia, observed that
in actual life it often happens that persons give false age of the boy at the
time of his admission to a school so that later in life he would have an
advantage when seeking public service for which a minimum age for
eligibility is often prescribed.
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
B.N.S.S., which indicates her consent, 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- Upendra Paswan, be released on bail in the
aforementioned case crime 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.)
September 21, 2026/(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…