Allahabad High Court
IKHLAKversusSTATE 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 applicant, Ikhlak, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 246 of 2026) involving alleged offences under Sections 64(2) and 137(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 5L/6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed innocence, asserting that the alleged victim, a consenting party, denied any sexual assault in a statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. The State opposed bail but did not refute the applicant's submissions. The court examined the victim's statement indicating consent and, without delving into the merits, found a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 64(2), 137(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 5L/6 of the POCSO Act given the alleged consent of the victim.
- Whether the victim's statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. establishing consent is sufficient to justify bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- consent
- sexual assault
- criminal procedure
- Section 183
- Section 64
- Section 137
- POCSO
- prima facie
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29828 of 2026
Ikhlak
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Singh, Sarvesh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Jawahir Yadav, G.A., Manish Yadav
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.65 out of 80 T.C.)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Dinesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jawahir
Yadav, learned counsel for the informant, 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.246 of 2026, under Sections 64(2),
137(2) B.N.S. and Section 5L/6 P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police Station Kotwali
Dehat, 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 evident from her statement recorded under
Section 183 B.N.S.S. She has denied being subjected to any sexual assault
by the applicant. She, by her looks, seems to be major, although she has
mentioned herself to be 17 years old in her statement recorded under Section
183 B.N.S.S. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since
14.07.2026. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the
liberty of bail.
5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have
vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the
submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
BAIL No. 29828 of 2026
2
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS,
which 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.
7. Let the applicant- Ikhlak, 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.
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
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…