Allahabad High Court
PRANSHU URF PRIYANSHUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted as the applicant made out a prima facie case for bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Pranshu Urf Priyanshu, who is charged under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act for alleged offences committed in Gajraula, Amroha. The victim, a 17‑year‑old girl, had recorded a statement under Section 183 of the Evidence Act indicating that she had gone voluntarily with the accused to Noida and stayed there for 20 days, suggesting consent. An ossification test report placed the victim’s age at 17, but the Court noted, following Supreme Court precedents, that radiological age estimates have a margin of error of one to two years and no medical evidence corroborated the alleged assault. The Court found that, on a prima facie basis, the applicant had satisfied the criteria for bail despite the serious nature of the charges. Consequently, the Court ordered the release of the accused on personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions. The order expressly stated that the bail decision does not prejudice the trial on merits. The Court also directed that any breach of conditions would lead to cancellation of bail.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with offences under the IPC and POCSO Act when the victim is a minor but alleges consent.
- Whether the ossification test report and the victim's statement are sufficient to establish a prima facie case for bail.
- Whether the lack of medical evidence on record affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 363, 366, 376(3)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- consent
- minor
- POCSO
- rape
- evidentiary standards
- ossification test
- victim testimony
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29521 of 2025
Pranshu Urf Priyanshu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gunjan Sharma, Sandeep Kumar
Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.143 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to
the informant has been served on 26.08.2025, but none is present on behalf
of the informant.
2. Heard Ms. Gunjan Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra
Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the
material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Special Sessions Trial No.361 of 2024 (State vs.
Priyanshu) arising out of Case Crime No.321 of 2024, under Sections 363,
366, 376(3) IPC and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Gajraula,
District- Amroha, during the pendency of trial.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the
statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS prima facie indicates her
consent, as she had gone with the applicant all the way to Noida from
Amroha and stayed there for 20 days. As per the ossification test report, the
victim is 17 years old. In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in
Jaya Mala Vs. State of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Mohd. Imran Khan
vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192,, it has been held that
the opinion of a radiologist regarding age is not exact and carries a margin of
error of 1–2 years on either side. Furthermore, there is no medical evidence
on record to corroborate the alleged incident.
BAIL No. 29521 of 2025
2
5. 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.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
6. Let the applicant- Pranshu Urf Priyanshu, 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.
7. 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…