Allahabad High Court
RISHABH @ BOBBY YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted as the victim was prima facie a minor and the allegations warranted the applicant's continued detention.
Summary
The applicant, Rishabh @ Bobby Yadav, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 638 of 2025) alleging offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4(2) of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, being the maternal uncle (phupha) of the victim, enticed a girl who was about 14 years old at the time of the incident and had sexual relations with her, while the defence argued that the victim was a consenting adult of about 18 years based on radiological evidence and that she had voluntarily lived with and married the applicant. The court examined the victim's statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the school record indicating her age as 14, and the radiological report suggesting she was under 18. The judge found that, prima facie, the victim was a minor and that the applicant's relationship with her raised serious concerns, making bail inappropriate at this stage. Consequently, the bail application was rejected. The judgment was limited to the bail issue and did not prejudice the merits of the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to the accused in a case involving alleged sexual offences against a minor under the POCSO Act.
- Whether the victim's consent, as claimed by the defence, negates the applicability of the POCSO provisions.
- Whether the age of the victim, as determined by school records and radiological evidence, qualifies her as a minor for the purposes of the offence.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 65(1), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4(2)
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- minor
- sexual offences
- consent
- age verification
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24864 of 2026
Rishabh @ Bobby Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pravin Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. However it reflects, on 4.8.2026 notice was issued to the informant and till date
service report is still awaited but from the counter affidavit filed by State it reflects
notice has already been served to the informant on 4.8.2026 therefore, it reflects,
despite service of notice none appeared on behalf of the informant.
2. Heard Sri Pravin Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Bahadur
Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondent.
3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in
Case Crime No. 638 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) BNS & Sections
3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Gurusahaiganj, District Kannauj during pendency
of the trial in the court below.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however as per allegation applicant
is phupha of the victim and he enticed away the victim and made physical relationship
with her but entire allegations made against the applicant are totally false.
5. He further submitted that actually victim started living with the applicant and she
herself had gone alongwith the applicant and she also even performed marriage with
him and these facts are evident from her both the statements recorded under sections
180 and 183 BNSS. He further submitted that prima facie, victim appears to be
consenting party.
6. He further submitted that however as per school record on the date of incident
victim was about 14 years of age but as her radiological examination her age was
about 18 years and therefore, it cannot be said that she was 14 years of age and it
reflects her parents did not disclose her correct date of birth in her school record.
7. He further submitted that applicant is having no previous criminal history and he is
in jail in the present matter since 27.3.2026.
BAIL No. 24864 of 2026
2
8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that however
from the statements of the victim recorded during investigation it reflects, she was
consenting party but applicant is phupha of the victim and even from the school record
it reflects, victim was about 14 years of age and therefore, considering the facts of the
case applicant should not be released on bail and his instant bail application may be
dismissed.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
10. However from the statements of the victim recorded under sections 180 and 183
BNSS it reflects, she was consenting party but from her school record it reflects on the
date of incident she was about 14 years of age.
11. Further, even from her supplementary report it reflects, her radiological age was
also less than 18 years of age, therefore, prima facie, victim appears to be below 18
years of age.
12. Further, even applicant is phupha of the victim and it reflects, he enticed her away
and thereafter started living with her. Considering the overall facts of the case, prima
facie, it cannot be said that applicant is innocent.
13. Further, in the present matter, applicant is in jail only since 27.3.2026.
14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in
view of this Court, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail, at this stage.
15. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected.
16. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in
by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations
shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
September 16, 2026
Ankita
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANKITA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…