Allahabad High Court
JANVEDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Janved, accused under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed false implication, asserting that the victim, aged 17 per an ossification test (with a two‑year error margin), had voluntarily left home, married him, and was pregnant, with no allegation of force. The State and the informant opposed bail but could not refute these facts. The court found no criminal antecedents, no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation, and noted the prolonged pre‑trial detention, concluding that bail was appropriate. Accordingly, the court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to personal bond, sureties, and conditions to prevent tampering, intimidation, and ensure court appearances.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under the B.N.S. and POCSO provisions given the alleged consensual relationship with a minor victim.
- Whether there is a likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or intimidating the witness if released on bail.
- Whether the age determination error margin should be interpreted in favor of the accused.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- minor
- consensual marriage
- evidence tampering
- witness intimidation
- age determination
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2773 of 2026
Janved
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandra Shekhar Pal, Sunil Kumar
Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Vakalatnama, filed by Sri Mayank Gaurav, Advocate on behalf of the
informant, is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A.
for the State and Sri Mayank Gaurav, counsel for the informant. Perused the
record.
3. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 696 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87,
64(1) B.N.S., and 3/4 POCSO Act P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri, during
pendency of the trial.
4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The victim is major. As per the ossification
test report, the victim was found aged 17 years. The range of error in
determining the age is about two years and the same should be read in favour
of the applicant at this stage. The victim in her statements under sections 180
and 183 B.N.S. has stated that she left her house voluntarily and had married
the applicant. She is carrying a pregnancy of four months. There is no
allegation of forceful assault against the applicant. The applicant is in jail
since 22.11.2025 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail,
he will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned A.G.A. for State and counsel for the informant has opposed the
prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions
from the record.
BAIL No. 2773 of 2026
2
5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that as per the ossification test report, the victim was
found aged 17 years. The victim in her statements under sections 180 and
183 B.N.S. has stated that she left her house voluntarily and had married the
applicant. There is no allegation of forceful assault against the applicant. The
applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has presently
remained confined for more than three months and there is no hope of early
conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been
brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would
either tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witness, without
commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant
is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant, Janved involved in the aforesaid case be released on
bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like
amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions
that:
i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;
iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
March 19, 2026
S.S.
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…