Allahabad High Court
YASHWANT YADAV @ CHINTUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that prima facie the applicant is entitled to bail and allowed the bail application.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Yashwant Yadav, who was charged under IPC sections 64(1), 333, 352, 351(3) and sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act for an alleged offence at Mehdawal. The applicant claimed innocence, arguing that the alleged victim, a 16‑year‑old, had given a consensual statement under Section 183 of the BNSS and that the ossification test used to determine her age could have a margin of error of up to two years. The State and the informant opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences and the victim’s minority. The court, after hearing counsel for both sides, found that prima facie the applicant had made out a case for bail, noting the victim’s alleged consent and the applicant’s clean record. Accordingly, bail was granted on personal bond and two sureties, with conditions to not tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, and to appear as required.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a case involving alleged offences under IPC sections 64(1), 333, 352, 351(3) and POCSO Act sections 3/4 where the victim is a minor but allegedly consenting.
- Whether the age of the alleged minor victim, as determined by an ossification test, can be contested for the purpose of bail.
- Whether the applicant’s lack of prior criminal history and undertaking to cooperate suffice to justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 333, 351(3), 352, 64(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- IPC
- POCSO
- minor victim
- consent
- age determination
- sureties
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28756 of 2026
Yashwant Yadav @ Chintu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Naveen Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sheetala Prasad Pandey
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.33 out of 80 T.C.)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Naveen Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Ashutosh Upadhyay, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sheetala Prasad Pandey,
learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Uma Shankar Mishra,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.177 of 2026, under Sections 64(1),
333, 352, 351(3) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Mehdawal,
District Sant Kabir Nagar, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded
U/s 183 BNSS. The victim by her looks seems to be major, although she is
stated to be 16 years old as per the ossification test report. 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. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since
4.5.2026. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty
of bail.
5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently
opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the learned
BAIL No. 28756 of 2026
2
counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the fact that victim seems to be a consenting party as far as her
statement recorded U/s 183 BNSS is concerned, and 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. The bail application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Yashwant Yadav @ Chintu, be released on bail in the
aforementioned case crime 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.
8. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 11, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…