Allahabad High Court
RASHID ALIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant made out a prima facie case for bail and therefore allowed the bail application.
Summary
The applicant, Rashid Ali, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 204 of 2024) involving alleged offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) of the BNS and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act. The victim, aged between 15 and 16 years, had reportedly given consent and had accompanied the applicant to several places without raising alarm, and no medical evidence corroborated the alleged assault. The court noted that a radiologist's opinion on the victim's age is not exact and carries a margin of error of one to two years. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Jaya Mala and Mohd Imran Khan) regarding the evidentiary value of such opinions, the court found a prima facie case for bail. 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 bail should be granted in a case involving alleged offences under the BNS and POCSO Act when the victim is a minor who allegedly consented.
- Whether the victim's age as determined by a radiologist, with an inherent margin of error, is sufficient to affect the bail decision.
- Whether the absence of medical evidence corroborating the alleged incident justifies granting bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- consent
- minor
- POCSO Act
- radiologist opinion
- evidentiary standards
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26812 of 2025
Rashid Ali
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Adarsh Srivastava, Reena Pal, Vinay
Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 135 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 29.07.2025 but none is present on behalf of
the informant.
2. Heard Ms. Reena Pal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil
Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed
on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 204 of 2024, under Sections
137(2), 87, 65(1) of BNS and Section 4(2) of POCSO Act, Police
Station - Awagarh, District - Etah, 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 she had accompanied the applicant to several places and
has not raised any alarm whatsoever. As per the ossification test report,
the victim is stated to be between 15 to 16 years of age. In view of the
judgments of 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 opinion of a radiologist
regarding age is not exact and carries a margin of error of 1–2 years on
either side. Furthermore, there is no medical evidence on record to
corroborate the alleged incident.
BAIL No. 26812 of 2025
2
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- Rashid Ali, 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…