Allahabad High Court
VIPINversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that, prima facie, the applicant had made out a case for bail and therefore granted bail.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application (No. 29266 of 2025) filed by Vipin, who was charged under IPC sections 137(2), 87, 64 and Sections 3 and 4(2) of the POCSO Act in Crime No. 197 of 2025. The applicant argued that the allegations were false, the victim had consented as per her statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S., there was no medical evidence, and the age document was fabricated. The State opposed bail but could not refute these submissions. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Prabhakar Tewari (2020) that pending cases do not bar bail, the court held that prima facie the applicant had a case for bail. Consequently, bail was granted on personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions, without prejudice to the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged sexual offences under the POCSO Act despite the seriousness of the charges.
- Whether the absence of medical corroboration and the victim's alleged consent affect the bail decision.
- Whether the existence of pending criminal cases against the accused precludes bail.
- Whether a false age document impacts the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 64, 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4(2)
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- consent
- false allegations
- medical evidence
- pending cases
- Indian Penal Code
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29266 of 2025
Vipin
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prashant Singh, Saurabh Sachan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.141 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the
informant has been served on 26.08.2025.
2. Heard Sri Saurabh Sachan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.K.S.
Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.197 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 87, 64 BNS and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station
Devgaon, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the allegations are per se
false. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement
recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. There is no medical corroboration of
the incident. There is no allegation of rape against the applicant in the
statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS. There is no
documentary evidence to suggest that the victim was minor. A false
document regarding her age has been furnished by the informant. The
criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained. He is in jail since
14.06.2025 and undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the
liberty of bail.
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could
not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
BAIL No. 29266 of 2025
2
6. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another,
(2020) 11 SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases
against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his
case for bail is made out.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration that there is no medical corroboration of the incident and that
the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS indicates her
consent, 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.
8. Let the applicant- Vipin, 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.
9. 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
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…