Allahabad High Court
SANOJ CHAUDHARYversusSTATE 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 Sanoj Chaudhary, who was charged under Sections 65(1), 351(3) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 4(2) of the POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, highlighted a fifteen‑hour delay in filing the FIR, the absence of medical evidence, and asserted his youth (19 years) and clean record. The informant’s counsel opposed bail, but the court noted the FIR delay and lack of corroborative medical proof as factors favoring release. Without passing on the merits, the court found a prima facie case for bail and ordered the applicant’s release on personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions. The bail order was conditioned on the applicant not tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and appearing before the trial court as required.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and lack of medical evidence justify granting bail in a case involving serious offences under the POCSO and SC/ST Acts
- Whether the applicant’s age, clean criminal record, and claim of innocence are sufficient grounds for bail
- Whether bail can be granted pending trial for offences punishable under Sections 65(1), 351(3) IPC, POCSO Act, and SC/ST Act
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 351(3), 65(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- SC/ST Act
- FIR delay
- medical evidence
- age of victim
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29733 of 2026
Sanoj Chaudhary
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nitin Singh, Swati Agrawal Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mahendra Kumar Yadav, Salil
Krishna
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.51 out of 80 T.C.)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Ms. Swati Agrawal Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant,
Sri Salil Krishna, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Abhishek
Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.61 of 2026, under Sections 65(1),
351(3) BNS and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police
Station Rewtipur, District Ghazipur, 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
FIR is delayed by about fifteen hours and there is no explanation of the said
delay caused. The victim by her looks seems to be major, although she is
stated to be 14-16 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.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the applicant
himself is a youth of 19 years old. There is no medical corroboration of the
alleged incident. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since
25.5.2026. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the
BAIL No. 29733 of 2026
2
liberty of bail.
6. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently
opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the learned
counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay in institution of FIR coupled with the fact that there
is no medical corroboration of the alleged incident, 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- Sanoj Chaudhary, 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.
9. 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…