Allahabad High Court
CHANDBABUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that bail cannot be granted in this case as the allegations involve a child of tender age and the application was devoid of merit.
Summary
The applicant, Chandbabu, was charged under IPC sections 65(2), 333, 351(3) and POCSO Act sections 5(n)/6 for allegedly outraging the modesty of a two‑and‑a‑half‑year‑old child and committing buccal coitus on 13 March 2025. The applicant argued that the FIR was false, there was no medical evidence, and he had been detained since the incident, seeking bail. The prosecution, represented by the informant’s counsel, contended that the alleged offence involved a minor and therefore bail should not be granted. The court examined the seriousness of the allegations against a child and found the bail application without merit. Consequently, the bail plea was rejected, and the court directed that the trial proceed expeditiously, citing Supreme Court precedents. The observations were limited to the bail application and do not affect the trial’s merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused charged with sexual assault of a child under the POCSO Act and IPC.
- Whether the absence of medical corroboration defeats the bail application.
- Whether the nature of the offence involving a minor precludes the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 333, 351(3), 65(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5(n), 6
Subjects
- bail
- sexual assault
- child protection
- POCSO Act
- Indian Penal Code
- medical evidence
- expedited trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28259 of 2025
Chandbabu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandra Prakash Kushwaha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dev Prakash Sharma, G.A., Priyanka
Devi
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.139 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Satya Prakash Rathore, Advocate holding brief of Sri Chandra
Prakash Kushwaha, learned counsel for applicant, Ms. Priyanka Devi,
learned counsel for the informant, Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State
Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime
No.84 of 2025, under Sections 65(2), 333, 351(3) BNS and 5(n)/6 POCSO
Act, Police Station Kabrai, District Mahoba with the prayer to enlarge him
on bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have outraged the
modesty of the victim and had also committed buccal coitus with her on
13.03.2025 at about 12:00 p.m.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that it is true that the FIR is
prompt, but there is no medical corroboration of the incident. The applicant
was employed at the shop of the informant, and his salary for 8 months was
due from the informant; as such, he has been falsely implicated in the instant
case. The applicant is in jail since 13.03.2025 and is ready to cooperate with
trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty
of bail.
BAIL No. 28259 of 2025
2
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have
vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim was a
child of tender age, i.e., two and a half years old; as such, the applicant is not
entitled to bail.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the nature of the allegations levelled against the applicant, that too against a
child of tender age, i.e., two and a half years old, I do not find it a fit case for
grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits
and is, accordingly, rejected.
8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as
has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the
cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain
and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal
impediment.
9. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 23, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…