Allahabad High Court
RAJversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail and allowed the bail application.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Raj, who was arrested in Crime No. 44 of 2026 under Sections 65(1), 87, 137(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated, asserting that the alleged victim, a 13‑year‑old girl, had consented to a matrimonial alliance and had refused a medical examination, while the prosecution argued that a minor’s consent is legally irrelevant. The court examined the lack of conclusive age proof, the absence of incriminating material, and the applicant’s clean record, while also noting the need to decongest jails. Relying on recent Supreme Court precedents on bail, the court decided to grant bail without passing on the merits of the case. The order released the applicant on bail subject to a personal bond, sureties, and several conditions, and directed procedural steps for verification and release.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused in a POCSO case where the alleged victim is a minor and claims consent.
- Whether the lack of definitive age verification and medical examination affects the bail decision.
- Whether the applicant’s clean criminal record and jail overcrowding justify bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- minor
- consent
- age determination
- criminal procedure
- jail overcrowding
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26199 of 2026
Raj
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pranav Mishra, Rajesh Yadav, Shad
Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Shri Shad Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri B.P.
Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. At the very
outset, learned AGA submits that the notice has been served on the first
informant.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 44 of 2026, under Sections 65(1), 87,
137(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station
Chaubepur, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case though there is no
incriminating material against him. It is further submitted that on perusal
of the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183
BNSS, it appears that she is a consenting party and she has entered into
matrimonial alliance with the applicant with her free consent. It is further
submitted that the victim has refused to undergo medico legal
examination. It is further submitted that the age of the victim has been
found to be 13 years and 6 months as per school records of Class X,
however, there is no certificate of high school or certificate of school first
attended and no radio-logical examination has been conducted for her age
determination. It is further submitted that the applicant is having no
criminal history and the applicant has been languishing in jail since
18.02.2026, in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of
BAIL No. 26199 of 2026
2
bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail
and it has been submitted by him that the victim is a minor girl aged about
13 years and 6 months and her consent is immaterial.
5. As per first information report, the applicant is said to have enticed
away the daughter of the first informant, however, the victim has been
recovered and on perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under
Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, it appears that she is a consenting party and
she has entered into matrimonial alliance with the applicant with her free
consent. It is further submitted that the victim has refused to undergo
medico legal examination. It is further submitted that the age of the victim
has been found to be 13 years and 6 months as per school records of Class
X, however, there is no certificate of high school or certificate of school
first attended and no radio-logical examination has been conducted for her
age determination. It is further submitted that the applicant is having no
criminal history and the applicant has been languishing in jail since
18.02.2026
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of
offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into account
overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial
courts as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex
Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court
in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC
Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is
entitled to be enlarged on bail.
7. Accordingly, the present application is ALLOWED.
8. Let the applicant- Raj involved in the aforementioned crime be
released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each
in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the
following conditions:-
BAIL No. 26199 of 2026
3
(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely
without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or
commission of any crime after being released on bail.
(iv) The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the
bond executed by him.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant as well
as sureties should be verified by the court concerned.
11. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to
the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to
ensure early release of the applicant.
12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
Jail Superintendent, Kanpur Nagar via e-mail or e-prison portal within
24 hours in compliance of the order of the Apex Court in the case of
Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition
(Crl.) No.4 of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC
685.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
September 8, 2026
RKM
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…