Allahabad High Court
RAVI KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
Bail is granted to the accused on personal bond and sureties.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ravi Kumar, who was charged under Sections 137(2) and 65(1) of the BNS Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act for an alleged sexual offence involving a 16‑year‑old girl. The applicant contended that the relationship was consensual, the girl had voluntarily accompanied him, and they intended to marry; he also highlighted the absence of medical evidence and his clean criminal record. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s claims. Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in State of U.P. v. Anurudh (2026 INSC 47) and other High Court precedents emphasizing the misuse of the POCSO Act in consensual adolescent relationships, the Court held that the victim’s statement and the lack of corroborative evidence warranted bail. Consequently, the Court granted bail on personal bond and sureties, subject to standard conditions. The order does not affect the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a POCSO case where the alleged victim is a minor but claims a consensual relationship.
- Whether the absence of medical evidence and the applicant’s clean record justify bail despite the seriousness of the charges.
- How the Supreme Court’s guidance on misuse of the POCSO Act applies to this case.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 137(2), 65(1)
- Juvenile Justice Act
- POCSO Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- consensual relationship
- minor
- misuse of law
- age of consent
- juvenile justice
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26338 of 2025
Ravi Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kunwar Bikram Suryabansh, Sandeep
Kumar Yadav, Subhash Chandra Pandey,
Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Arun Kumar Singh, G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 133 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Kunwar Bikram Suryabansh, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as 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. 117 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 65(1) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station -
Rajghat, District - Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. It is also stated that the victim is the
consenting party as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS as
she has gone with the applicant all the way to Nalanda, Bihar and has not
raised any alarm whatsoever. The victim and the applicant are stated to have
agreed to marry each other.
5. Learned counsel has next contended that as per the statement of the
victim, she is 16 years old but by her looks, she seems to be major. The
applicant himself is 19 years old youth. There is no medical corroboration of
the incident. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in
jail since 20.06.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.
BAIL No. 26338 of 2025
2
6. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have
vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the
submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact
that the applicant has no criminal history.
7. Speaking on consensual relationships being criminalised, the Supreme
Court in its recent judgment STATE OF U.P. VS. ANURUDH & ANR.
reported in 2026 INSC 47 has stated in Para-19 as follows:
"19. As the conclusions drawn above indicate the impugned
judgment and order of the High Court has to be set aside on
grounds of transgression of the jurisdiction present and thereby
lacking the appropriate directions. It is to be set aside also
because it goes against the statutory prescription under the JJ Act.
Be that as it may, this Court has not lost sight of the well-
intentioned purport of this order. The POCSO Act is one of the
most solemn articulations of justice aimed at protecting the
children of today and the leaders of tomorrow. Yet, when an
instrument of such noble and one may even say basic good intent
is misused, misapplied and used as a tool for exacting revenge,
the notion of justice itself teeters on the edge of inversion. Courts
have in many cases sounded alarm regarding this situation.
Misuse of the POCSO Act highlights a grim societal chasm - on
the one end children are silenced by fear and their families are
constrained by poverty or stigma, meaning thereby that justice
remains distant and uncertain, and on the other hand, those
equipped with privilege, literacy, social and monetary capital are
able to manipulate the law to their advantage. The impugned
judgment is one amongst many where Courts have spoken out.
Not only are instances rife where the age of the victim is
misrepresented to make the incident fall under the stringent
provisions of this law but also there are numerous instances
where this law is used by families in opposition to relationships
between young people. In Satish alias Chand v. State of U.P. Crl.
Misc. Bail Appl. No. 18596 of 2024, the High Court, noted that
on few occasions concern had been expressed by the Court with
respect to application of the Act on consenting adolescence when
it comes to consensual relationships between teenagers, four
factors have been highlighted which, is crucial for the Courts to
consider:
"A. Assess the Context: Each case should be evaluated
BAIL No. 26338 of 2025
3
on its individual facts and circumstances. The nature of
the relationship and the intentions of both parties
should be carefully examined.
B. Consider Victim's Statement: The statement of the
alleged victim should be given due consideration. If the
relationship is consensual and based on mutual
affection, this should be factored into decisions
regarding bail and prosecution.
C. Avoid Perversity of Justice: Ignoring the consensual
nature of a relationship can lead to unjust outcomes,
such as wrongful imprisonment. The judicial system
should aim to balance the protection of minors with the
recognition of their autonomy in certain contexts. Here
the age comes out to be an important factor.
D. Judicial Discretion: Courts should use their
discretion wisely, ensuring that the application of
POCSO does not inadvertently harm the very
individuals it is meant to protect."
[See also: Mrigraj Gautam @ Rippu v. State of U.P.]
2023:AHC:204171
The Delhi High Court in Sahil v. the State NCT of Delhi
2024:DHC:6100 the Court noted in para 11 of the order that
POCSO cases filed at the behest of a girl's family objecting to
romantic involvement with a young boy have become common
place and consequent thereto these young boys languish in jails.
Therein, reference is also made to an order of the Gujarat High
Court (Jayantibhai Babulbhai Alani v. State of Gujarat 2018
SCC Online Guj. 1223), where the Court noted that considering
the closeness in age of the prosecutrix and the accused as also the
fact that she had left home of her own accord observed that the
application deserved consideration.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, severity of punishment, the
aforesaid judgement(s) of Supreme Court and also considering the statement
of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS which indicates towards her consent
coupled by the fact that there being no medical corroboration of the incident,
prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail
application is allowed.
BAIL No. 26338 of 2025
4
9. Let the applicant- Ravi Kumar, 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.
10. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
April 23, 2026
Siddhant
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…