Allahabad High Court
MUKESH SAHNI @ TAKKALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court granted bail to the applicant, finding a prima facie case for bail.
Summary
Mukesh Sahni applied for bail in a criminal case involving alleged offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) of the BNS Act and Sections 5L and 6 of the POCSO Act. The victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS indicated consent, as she had accompanied the applicant to Gujarat and solemnised marriage with him. An ossification test placed the victim’s age at about 17 years, and the Court applied the Supreme Court’s guidance that radiological age determination carries a margin of one to two years. Relying on precedents from Jaya Mala v. State of J&K and Mohd. Imran Khan v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court held that a prima facie case for bail existed. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite allegations of sexual offences under the POCSO Act.
- Whether the victim’s consent, as recorded, negates the seriousness of the charges.
- Whether the ossification test age determination of the victim is sufficient to assess the applicability of child protection statutes.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 137(2), 65(1), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 5L, 6
Subjects
- bail
- consent
- age determination
- POCSO
- child marriage
- radiological age test
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26508 of 2025
Mukesh Sahni @ Takkal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashwani Kumar Pathak, Prince Kumar
Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 120 out of 262)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned AGA, notice to the
informant has been served on 02.08.2025 but none is present on behalf of
the informant.
2. Heard Sri Prince Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 04 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 87, 65(1) of BNS and Sections 5L/6 of POCSO Act, Police
Station - Chiluwatal, District - Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the
statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS indicates her
consent, as she had accompanied the applicant to Gujarat and solemnized
marriage with him. As per the ossification test report, her age has been
assessed to be about 17 years. In view of the law laid down by 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 radiological age determination is not exact
and a margin of 1 to 2 years on either side is to be considered.
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.
BAIL No. 26508 of 2025
2
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
6. Let the applicant- Mukesh Sahni @ Takkal, 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 2, 2026
Siddhant
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…