Allahabad High Court
DEVENDRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and granted bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Devendra, accused under Sections 127(2), 65(1) BNS and 4(2) of the POCSO Act for an alleged offence involving a 14‑15‑year‑old victim. The applicant argued that the FIR was delayed, the victim appeared to be a consenting party, and the age determination was uncertain, asserting false implication and lack of criminal history. The State opposed the bail but did not present substantive counter‑arguments. The Court noted the delay in the FIR, the victim’s statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. indicating consent, and the applicant’s clean record, and concluded that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to personal bond, sureties, and conditions to not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a POCSO case where the alleged victim is a minor but appears to have consented.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and alleged false implication justify bail.
- Whether the uncertainty in the victim's age, based on ossification test, affects the bail decision.
- Whether the applicant's lack of criminal history and willingness to cooperate warrant bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 183
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 127(2), 4(2), 65(1) BNS
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- minor victim
- consent
- FIR delay
- false implication
- age determination
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27040 of 2025
Devendra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, Parth Sharma,
Rajesh Kumar Bind
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Alka Singh, G.A., Rahul Kumar
Sharma
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 101 out of 269)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for
the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Bind, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Rahul Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the informant, Ms. Alka Singh,
learned counsel for opposite party no, as well as Sri R.M. Yadav, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 242 of 2025, under Sections
127(2), 65(1) BNS and 4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station Hathras Gate,
District Hathras, during the pendency of trial.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
4. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. The FIR is delayed by about 12 hours and there is no
explanation of the said delay caused even though the applicant and the
victim are stated to have been apprehended by the informant at the spot,
thus, it is a clear-cut case of false implication. .
5. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement
recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she along with the applicant
were seen in a compromising state by the informant and on her seeing them,
BAIL No. 27040 of 2025
2
the instant FIR has been instituted. There is no sign of struggle by the victim
and she did not raise any alarm, whatsoever.
6. It is stated in the FIR that informant took the victim as well as the
applicant to the police station but the arrest of the applicant has been made
about two hours after the institution of the FIR, that too, from an open place,
which is accessible to public at large and the said place is Hatisha bridge on
the Agra road, as such, the prosecution story as narrated in the FIR stands
falsified.
7. The victim, by her physical appearance, seems to be major although her
age is 14-15 years as per ossification test report. Applicant himself is 19
years old youth. In view of the inherent margin of error in such tests, it is
urged that a leverage of two years on the upper side may be granted to the
applicant while determining the age of the victim.
8. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing
in jail since 23.6.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the
applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
9. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by
counsel for the applicant has not been opposed.
CONCLUSION:
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay in FIR and the statement of the victim recorded u/s
183 BNSS, whereby she seems to be consenting party and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view
that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is
allowed.
11. Let the applicant- Devendra, 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
verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper with
BAIL No. 27040 of 2025
3
evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as
required.
12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent
opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 14, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…