Allahabad High Court
MOHD GULFAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that, prima facie, the applicant is entitled to bail and allowed the bail application.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Mohd Gulfam in a criminal case under Section 64(1) of the Bail and Security Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The victim’s statement under Section 183 of the Bail and Security Act suggested consent, and the victim was said to be about 18 years old, but the school certificate presented could not be relied upon under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act. The Court noted the Supreme Court’s guidance in P. Yuvaprakash v. State (AIR 2023 SC 3525) that only a matriculation or equivalent certificate, or a municipal/panchayat certificate, can be used to determine age in the absence of birth records, and there was no medical evidence. Without passing on the merits, the Court found a prima facie case for bail and ordered the applicant’s release on personal bond and sureties with standard conditions. The bail order is subject to verification of sureties and compliance with conditions, and any breach will lead to cancellation.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a POCSO case pending trial under Section 64(1) of the Bail and Security Act and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act.
- Whether the victim is a minor, given the inadequacy of the school certificate and the requirements of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act.
- Whether the victim’s statement indicating consent under Section 183 of the Bail and Security Act affects the bail decision.
- Whether the absence of medical evidence impacts the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bail and Security Act — s. 183, 64(1)
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act — s. 94
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- Juvenile Justice Act
- age determination
- consent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26213 of 2025
Mohd Gulfam
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Gupta, Sudhakar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 131 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 27.07.2025 but none is present on behalf of
the informant.
2. Heard Sri Sudhakar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material
placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 290 of 2025, under Section
64(1) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Roja,
District - Shahjahanpur, 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 per her own statement, she is major aged about 18 years.
As per the Class 5 school certificate, the date of birth of the victim is
stated to be 20.06.2007 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 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
BAIL No. 26213 of 2025
2
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- Mohd Gulfam, 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…