Allahabad High Court
SUFIYANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that prima facie the applicant has made out a case for bail and therefore granted bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sufiyan, who was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 137(2), 64(1), 87 of the Indian Evidence Act and Sections 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed innocence, stating that the alleged victim is a consenting adult who had expressed willingness to stay with him and that they have a child together. The State opposed bail, but the court noted the victim's consent, the applicant's clean record, and his willingness to cooperate. Without passing on the merits, the court found a prima facie case for bail. Accordingly, bail was granted on personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under the Indian Evidence Act and POCSO Act given the victim's consent and the nature of the alleged offence.
- Whether the applicant's lack of criminal history and cooperation are sufficient grounds for bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 137(2), 64(1), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 5(l), 6
Subjects
- bail
- consenting adult
- POCSO Act
- Indian Evidence Act
- criminal procedure
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29752 of 2026
Sufiyan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vinay Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.54 out of 80 T.C.)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Learned State Law Officer has informed that notice
to the informant has been served on 20.8.2026.
2. Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.P.
Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material
placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.44 of 2025, under Sections 137(2),
64(1), 87 BNS and Section 5(L)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Chilkana,
District Saharanpur, 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, whereby she has expressed her willingness to stay with the
applicant only. An offspring has been born out of the relationship between
the parties. She is major. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail
since 5.5.2026. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the
liberty of bail.
5. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application
but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not
be disputed.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
BAIL No. 29752 of 2026
2
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the fact that victim is a consenting party as is evident from her
statement recorded U/s 183 BNSS, 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- Sufiyan, 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…