Allahabad High Court
SURENDRA KUMAR ALIAS SACHINversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant made out a prima facie case for bail and therefore granted bail.
Summary
Surendra Kumar alias Sachin applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 48 of 2025) involving alleged offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 64 of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The victim, recorded as about 17 years old, allegedly gave consent and did not raise an alarm during the incident. The court noted that the ossification test report on the victim’s age has a margin of error and that there is no medical evidence to corroborate the allegations. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding age determination and the lack of substantive evidence, the court found a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, sureties, and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged offences under the BNS and POCSO Acts given the victim's purported consent and age.
- Whether the absence of medical evidence and the margin of error in the ossification test affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- consent
- age of victim
- POCSO
- medical evidence
- prima facie
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25832 of 2025
Surendra Kumar Alias Sachin
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Kumar Singh, Sarvesh Kumar
Dubey, Sushil Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kuldeep Singh Chahar
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 116 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned AGA, notice to the
informant has been served on 7.7.2025 but none is present on behalf of
the informant.
2. Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the
material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 48 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 87, 64 of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station -
Bamrauli Katara, District - Agra, during the pendency of trial.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that
the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS prima facie indicates
her consent as she had accompanied the applicant all the way to Jaipur
and has not raised any alarm whatsoever. As per the ossification test
report, the victim is stated to be about 17 years of age. In view of the
judgments of the Supreme Court 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, it has been held that the opinion of a radiologist
regarding age is not exact and carries a margin of error of 1–2 years on
either side. Furthermore, there is no medical evidence on record to
corroborate the alleged incident.
BAIL No. 25832 of 2025
2
5. 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.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
6. Let the applicant- Surendra Kumar Alias Sachin, 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.
7. 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…