Allahabad High Court
SURABHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- HARVIR SINGH
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted and dismissed the applicant’s bail application.
Summary
The applicant, Saurabh, filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the CrPC in a case involving alleged sexual offences against a 12‑year‑old boy under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352 of the IPC and Sections 5M(L) and 6 of the POCSO Act. He claimed innocence, alleging false implication due to enmity, and highlighted his family responsibilities and lack of prior criminal record. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged crimes. The victim’s statement recorded before a magistrate detailed forced smoking of biry, video recording, and repeated sexual abuse, corroborated by a medical report linking the boy’s piles to the abuse. Considering the nature of the offence, the victim’s testimony, and the absence of any change in circumstances since the first bail denial, the court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail and rejected the application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused charged with serious sexual offences under the POCSO Act and IPC provisions.
- Whether the applicant’s claim of false implication and lack of prior record warrants bail despite victim testimony.
- Whether there has been any material change in circumstances since the earlier bail denial.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. Section 156(3), Section 483
- Indian Penal Code — s. Section 115(2), Section 351(3), Section 352
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. Section 5M(L), Section 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- sexual abuse of child
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Indian Penal Code
- victim statement
- serious offence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25734 of 2026
Surabh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Mishra, Shiv Sharan Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rahul Shukla, G.A.
Court No. - 18
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the
State-opposite party.
2. The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant
under Section 483 BNSS to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 81 of
2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352 BNS and Sections 5M(L)/6
POCSO Act, Police Station- Jewar, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar. The
first bail application was rejected vide order dated 08.04.2026 passed in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20595 of 2025.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and he has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. It is further
submitted that the alleged incident is said to have happened in the house
of Mausi of the accused-applicant. The co-accused Maisi @ Mayank was
declared juvenile and he is facing trial before the Juvenile Justice Board.
It is further submitted that the applicant is a married persons having a
baby child. It is further submitted that for the first time, the boy (victim)
was medically treated on 3.3.2025 in the hospital and the said medical
examination has been entered by the I.O. in the case diary. It is further
submitted that there was no allegation regarding sexual assault committed
with the boy (victim) aged about 12 years. After moving the application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the grand-father of the victim, the
accused -applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He
lastly submitted that the applicant, who is in jail, since 11.03.2025 and has
no criminal antecedents to his discredit, is entitled to be enlarged on bail
BAIL No. 25734 of 2026
2
during pendency of the trial.
4. Learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the first informant have
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant
has tried to explain the criminal history, but the crime committed by the
accused, is that of serious nature.
5. The Statement of the victim aged about 12 years was recorded before
the learned Magistrate, wherein the child has stated that, he was forced to
smoke biri and a video film was also made, while smoking biri and was
sexually abused twice-thrice by the accused, namely, Saurabh. As per the
statement of the victim, the incident has been narrated and instances of
sexual abusing have been repeated by the said accused and the witness
stated, that the child was treated in Base Hospital, Delhi wherein he
developed piles and is further undergoing treatment in the hospital. This
court has also taken the note of the statement of Dr. Tegvir Singh,
Lieutenant Colonel Base Hospital, Delhi dated 02.06.2026 in which he
has categorically stated:
"हमारे अस्पताल में दिनांक 03/03/2025 को दीपाशु पुत्र रविन्द्र नि० दयानतपुर थाना जेवर गौतमबुद्धनगर
इलाज के लिए भर्ती हुआ था जिसका हमारी टीम द्वारा इलाज किया जा रहा है। इलाज के दौरान हमे पता चला है कि
उसको पाईल्स की भयंकर बीमारी है तथा यह बीमारी उसके साथ sexual abuse करने के उपरान्त हुई है।
मेरे द्वारा एमएलसी बनायी गयी है। मैं कोर्ट में बयान देने के लिए तैयार हूँ। इसके पश्चात मै उ०नि० वापस थाना आया
हूँ। आज की कार्यवाही का पर्चा सेवा मे प्रेषित है। विवेचना प्रचलित है।"
6. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the
accused, severity of the punishment, moreover, there is no change in the
circumstances or the law, as such the grounds raised in the earlier
application have been repeated by and large, hence taking into
consideration, the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and
considering that statement of the victim and witnesses, the accused-
applicant, Saurabh, is not entitled to be released on bail.
7. The bail application is rejected.
(Harvir Singh,J.)
September 25, 2026
Prashant D.
Digitally signed by :-
PRASHANT DWIVEDI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…