Allahabad High Court
ARJUN PALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed/Partly Allowed on merits
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted to the accused.
Summary
Arjun Pal was charged under Sections 64, 333, 351(2) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act for allegedly raping a 14‑year‑old girl, the informant's daughter, on 17 March 2025. The applicant pleaded innocence, arguing that the FIR was delayed, the victim had consented as per her statement under Section 183 of the Evidence Act, there were no injuries in the medical report, and no documentary proof of the victim's minority. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the applicant’s submissions. The Court, after considering the facts, the alleged consent, and the lack of corroborative evidence, found that the applicant had made out a case for bail and ordered his release on personal bond and sureties, subject to conditions. The bail order was issued without expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying offence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a POCSO case where the alleged victim is a minor but claims consent.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and lack of medical injuries justify bail.
- Whether the applicant’s lack of prior criminal record and willingness to cooperate warrant bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 333, 351(2), 64
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- minor
- POCSO
- consent
- FIR delay
- medical report
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22348 of 2025
Arjun Pal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : G.S.Chauhan, Ray Sahab Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.80 out of 257)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Learned State Law Officer has informed that
notice to the informant has been served on 26.6.2025.
2. Heard Sri G.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri
R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the
material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.54 of 2025, under Sections 64,
333, 351(2) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Gursarai, District
Jhansi, during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The applicant is stated to have committed rape upon the daughter of the
informant, aged about 14 years, on 17.3.2025 at about 02:00 p.m. In the
meantime, his nephew is stated to have reached there; upon seeing him, the
applicant is stated to have run away from the place of occurrence.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence.
6. The FIR is delayed by about four hours and there is no explanation of the
said delay caused.
BAIL No. 22348 of 2025
2
7. The victim seems to be a consenting party, which is but evident from her
statement recorded U/s 183 BNSS as well as the FIR itself. It is stated by the
victim that her cousin had reached there, as such, the applicant ran away
from the place of occurrence. There is no sign of any resistance by the
victim or raising of alarm by her.
8. The medical report also does not corroborate the prosecution story, as the
victim has not sustained any injury on her body whatsoever.
9. The victim, in her statement before the doctor, has categorically stated
that applicant had used a condom while committing the said offence, which
itself indicates her consent.
10. The victim, by her looks, seems to be major, although she is stated to be
14 years old. The applicant himself is a 19 years old youth. There is no
documentary evidence to indicate that victim was minor.
11. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 19.3.2025. He
undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
12. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the
learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.
CONCLUSION:
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the fact that victim seems to be a consenting party, which is
but evident from her statement recorded U/s 183 BNSS, 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.
14. Let the applicant- Arjun Pal, 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
BAIL No. 22348 of 2025
3
trial court as required.
15. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 13, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…