Allahabad High Court
RINKUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that, prima facie, the applicant made out a case for bail and therefore granted bail.
Summary
The applicant Rinku was charged under sections 137(2) and 65(1) of the BNS Act, sections 3 and 4(2) of the POCSO Act, and section 3(2)5 of the SC/ST Act for an alleged offence in Mirzapur. The victim’s statement recorded under section 183 of the BNS Act suggested consent, as she travelled with the applicant without raising alarm. The victim’s age was contested; a school certificate indicated a birth date of 10‑09‑2010, but the court held it unreliable under section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act and the Supreme Court’s ruling in P. Yuvaprakash v. State Rep. (AIR 2023 SC 3525), which requires a matriculation or equivalent certificate for age determination. No medical evidence corroborated the allegations. Without passing on the merits, the court found a prima facie case for bail and ordered the applicant’s release on bail with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite allegations under the BNS Act, POCSO Act, and SC/ST Act.
- Whether the victim can be deemed a minor based on the school certificate and applicable statutory provisions.
- Whether the lack of medical evidence and the victim’s alleged consent affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- BNS Act — s. 137(2), 183, 65(1)
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act — s. 94
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 3, 4(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)5
Subjects
- bail
- consent
- minor
- age proof
- POCSO Act
- SC/ST Act
- Juvenile Justice Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26068 of 2025
Rinku
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jai Prakash Prasad, Mahendra Kumar
Sharma, Saroj Giri, Shri Prakash
Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Laxmi Kant Shukla
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 123 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 12.08.2025 but none is present on
behalf of the informant.
2. Heard Sri Shri Prakash Dwivedi, 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. 22 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 65(1) of BNS, Sections 3/4(2) of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)5
of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Jigna, District - Mirzapur, 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 to Surat, Gujarat
without raising any alarm whatsoever. As per the Class 8 school
certificate, the date of birth of the victim is 10.09.2010 however, the said
document cannot be relied upon in view of the provisions of Section 94 of
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act. There is no other valid
document on record to establish that the victim was a minor at the
relevant time. Moreover, in light of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in P. Yuvaprakash vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police (AIR 2023
BAIL No. 26068 of 2025
2
SC 3525), only a matriculation or equivalent certificate, or a certificate
issued by a municipal authority or Panchayat, can be relied upon for
determination of age in the absence of birth records. Furthermore, there is
no medical evidence on record to corroborate the alleged incident.
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- Rinku, 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…