Allahabad High Court
SUNILversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court allowed the bail application, finding a prima facie case for bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sunil, who was arrested on 18 April 2025 in connection with a case under Sections 137(2), 351(2), 64 of the B.N.S.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed innocence, arguing that the alleged victim was a consenting party and that her age was likely above the age of majority despite a school certificate indicating otherwise. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant's submissions. Citing Supreme Court precedents on false age declarations, the Court held that, on a prima facie basis, the applicant had made out a case for bail. Consequently, the Court ordered his release on personal bond and sureties, subject to standard conditions, without prejudice to the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 137(2), 351(2), 64 of the B.N.S.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act during the pendency of trial.
- Whether the victim's alleged consent and disputed age affect the grant of bail.
- Whether the applicant's clean criminal record and willingness to cooperate justify bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 137(2), 351(2), 64
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- consent
- age of victim
- false implication
- criminal trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22536 of 2025
Sunil
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajiv Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.114 out of 277)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Learned State Law Officer has informed that the
notice to the informant has been served on 21.6.2025.
2. Heard Sri Rajiv Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jai
Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the
material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.271 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 351(2), 64 BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Khurja Nagar,
District Bulandshahr, 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 is but evident from her statement recorded
under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she traveled with the applicant to
several places and had not raised any alarm whatsoever during the said
sojourn.
5. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the victim, by
her looks, seems to be major, although she is stated to be marginally less
than the age of majority as per the school certificate. The applicant has no
criminal history and is in jail since 18.4.2025. He undertakes to cooperate
with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application
BAIL No. 22536 of 2025
2
but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
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. 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- Sunil, 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.
10. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 20, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…