Allahabad High Court
PRADEEP CHAUHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the applicant with specified conditions.
Summary
Pradeep Chauhan was arrested in connection with a case (Crime No. 598 of 2024) alleging offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 64 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The victim, initially a complainant, turned hostile during trial and later stated that she was a consenting party and was residing with the applicant. The applicant pleaded innocence, argued lack of criminal history, and asserted that his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 was being violated. The informant’s counsel did not object to bail provided the applicant cared for the victim and child. The court, noting the victim’s hostile stance, the consent claim, and the absence of a likelihood of conviction, granted bail with conditions including marriage to the victim, a fixed deposit for the child, and non‑interference with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a case involving alleged offences under the POCSO Act when the victim has turned hostile and claims consent.
- Whether the applicant’s right to liberty under Article 21 is violable in the circumstances.
- Whether the conditions imposed by the court are appropriate for bail in such offences.
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 64, 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- POCSO Act
- victim hostile
- consent
- Article 21
- Indian Penal Code
- evidence tampering
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21539 of 2025
Pradeep Chauhan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Indra Deo Yadav, Puneet Kumar, Yashpal
Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 91 out of 259)
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 8.6.2025.
2. Heard Sri Puneet Kumar, 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. 598 of 2024, under Sections
137(2), 87, 64 BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Saraimeer, District
Azamgarh, 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 has been examined during trial and she has completely resiled from
her earlier statement given to the Investigating Officer and the allegations of
the FIR. The witness has been cross-examined by the public prosecutor after
declaring him/her hostile. There is no likelihood of conviction in the present
case under the circumstances. The fundamental rights of the applicant as
enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. The
victim is the consenting party. Rather she has stated in her statement
recorded u/s 183 BNSS that she is living in the house of applicant only
alongwith her offspring (baby girl). The applicant is ready to take care of the
mother and daughter duo if he is enlarged on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no
BAIL No. 21539 of 2025
2
criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since
30.3.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Learned counsel for the informant has no objection if the applicant is
enlarged on bail on the condition that he is ready to take care of the victim
and the offspring in future.
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; the fact that the victim has turned hostile
regarding the allegations made in the FIR 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- Pradeep Chauhan, 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 the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall marry the victim and take care of her as well as the
offspring within a period of two months after his release from jail. The applicant
shall deposit (Fixed Deposit) a sum of Rs. 1 lakh in the name of the child under
the guardianship of her mother till attaining the age of majority, within a period
of six months from the date of his release from jail.
(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial.
(iii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
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.)
April 23, 2026\Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…