Allahabad High Court
ANKIT SONKARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
Prima facie the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
Ankit Sonkar applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 177 of 2025) involving alleged offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1), 123(1) of the BNS and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The victim, aged about 16 according to an ossification test, alleged that the applicant spiked her drink, rendered her unconscious, and later found herself naked, though no rape was alleged. The court found the victim's statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNS not credible and noted the absence of corroborating medical evidence, citing Supreme Court rulings that radiologists' age opinions have a margin of error. Relying on these observations, the court held that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite allegations under the BNS and POCSO Act.
- Credibility of the victim's statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNS.
- Whether the ossification test and radiologist's opinion on the victim's age are sufficient medical evidence.
- Applicability of Supreme Court precedents on age determination to the present bail application.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 123(1), 137(2), 183, 65(1), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 5, 6
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- POCSO Act
- age determination
- victim testimony
- radiology evidence
- BNS sections
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26077 of 2025
Ankit Sonkar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sharad Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Fatma Anjum, G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 125 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 9.7.2025 but none is present on
behalf of the informant.
2. Heard Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant
and Ms. Fatma Anjum, learned counsel for High Court Legal Services
Committee as well as Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer
and also perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 177 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 87, 65(1), 123(1) of BNS and Sections 5/6 of POCSO Act,
Police Station - Bindki, District - Fatehpur, during the pendency of trial.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that
the version of events as narrated by the victim in her statement recorded
u/s 183 of BNS cannot be believed. She has stated that the applicant
spiked her drink, rendering her unconscious, and then took her on a
motorcycle to a secluded place, whereupon, upon regaining
consciousness, she found herself to be naked although there is no
allegation of rape in it. As per the ossification test report, the victim is
stated to be about 16 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
BAIL No. 26077 of 2025
2
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.
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- Ankit Sonkar, 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…