Allahabad High Court
SARWAN KEVATversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted to the accused.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered a bail application filed by Sarwan Kevat, who was arrested on charges of theft (IPC s.363), rape (IPC s.376) and offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, that the victim, although recorded as 16 years old by an ossification test, appeared to be a major, and that there was no medical evidence or any witness testimony presented during the trial. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s claim of no prior criminal record. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow a two‑year margin in determining a minor’s age, and noting the glacial pace of the trial, the Court held that bail was appropriate. The bail was granted on condition of a personal bond, two sureties, and compliance with standard bail conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a case involving alleged rape of a minor under IPC s.376 and POCSO Act s.3/4.
- Whether the victim's age of 16 can be given a two‑year margin as per Supreme Court jurisprudence.
- Whether the absence of medical corroboration and the fact that no witnesses have been examined justify bail.
- Whether the applicant's clean criminal record influences the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 363, 376
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- child sexual abuse
- age of victim
- ossification test
- no medical evidence
- criminal history
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22855 of 2025
Sarwan Kevat
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nanhe Lal Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 97 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice
to the informant has been served on 26.06.2025 but none is present on
behalf of the informant.
2. Heard Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and also perused the
material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 66 of 2024, under Sections
363, 376 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station -
Madawara, District - Lalitpur, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case. The story as narrated by the
victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS cannot be
believed, as she has stated that the applicant, being an auto driver, met
her, took her to his house, and committed rape upon her twice.
5. Learned counsel has next contended that the victim appears major by
her looks, although the ossification test report puts her age at 16 years
thus, a leverage of two years on the upper side may be granted to the
applicant in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. There is no
medical corroboration of the incident. The trial is not progressing, as not a
single witness has been examined to date. There is no criminal history of
BAIL No. 22855 of 2025
2
the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 23.02.2025. In case, the
applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and
shall cooperate with trial.
6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail
application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned
counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no
criminal history.
7. With respect to the age of the victim, a leverage of two years can be
granted to the applicant on the upper side in light of the judgement of
Supreme Court passed in Jaya Mala Vs. State of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC
538 and Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10
SCC 192, whereby it has been opined that the radiologist cannot predict
the correct date of birth rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on
either side.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, severity of
punishment, the aforesaid judgement(s) of Supreme Court and also
considering the glacial pace of trial as not a single witness has been
examined coupled by the fact that there being no medical corroboration of
the incident, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.
The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant- Sarwan Kevat, 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 23, 2026
Siddhant
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…