Allahabad High Court
RAVI SAHANIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail and therefore granted bail.
Summary
The applicant, Ravi Sahimani, filed a bail application in Criminal Case No. 141 of 2026, which involves offences under Sections 49, 70(2), 74, 351(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(g) and 6 of the POCSO Act. The victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the Evidence Act indicated that she was a consenting party, and the main accused in the alleged gang‑rape had already been released on bail. The court examined the material on record, heard counsel for both sides, and noted that the applicant’s case appeared stronger than that of the main accused. Without passing on the merits, the court held that a prima facie case for bail existed. Accordingly, the bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting bail to an accused in a POCSO case where the victim’s statement suggests consent?
- Whether the existence of a main accused already on bail influences the bail decision for the applicant.
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 351(3), 49, 70(2), 74
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 5(g), 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- consent
- criminal procedure
- sureties
- evidence tampering
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26450 of 2026
Ravi Sahani
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : A.T. Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sriram Dhar Dubey
Court No. - 68
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 19.7.2026.
2. Heard Sri A.T. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.P. Patel,
learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record. None
is present on behalf of informant.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 141 of 2026, under Sections 49,
70(2), 74, 351(3) BNS and 5(g)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Brijmanganj,
District Maharajganj, during the pendency of trial.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, whereby
she seems to be consenting party as far as the applicant is concerned; the fact
that the main accused person, against whom the allegation of gang rape was
made, has been enlarged on bail; that the case of the applicant is at a better
footing than that of the main accused person and 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.
5. Let the applicant- Ravi Sahani, who is involved in aforementioned case
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 subject to
BAIL No. 26450 of 2026
2
verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper with
evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as
required.
6. Breach of any of the above condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observation herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 18, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…