Allahabad High Court
SHIVAM @ SHUBHAMversusSTATE 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 applicant, Shivam @ Shubham, filed a bail application in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29891 of 2026 concerning Crime No.207 of 2026, which alleged offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) of the Indian Evidence Act and Sections 3/4(3) of the POCSO Act. The State argued against bail, while the applicant’s counsel highlighted that the alleged victim, aged 18 as per an ossification test, had given a statement indicating consent under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. The court examined the material on record, the victim’s consent, and the age factor, and concluded that, on a prima facie basis, the applicant satisfied the criteria for bail. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. The order emphasized that any breach would lead to cancellation of bail and that the bail decision does not prejudice the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) B.N.S. and Sections 3/4(3) of the POCSO Act.
- Whether the victim's consent and her age of 18 affect the applicant's eligibility for bail.
- Whether the applicant meets the statutory criteria for bail under the relevant criminal procedure provisions.
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 137(2), 65(1), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 3/4(3)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- consent
- age of consent
- POCSO
- evidence
- surety
- trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29891 of 2026
Shivam @ Shubham
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anurag Dubey, Saurabh Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajnish Kumar
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.80 out of 80 T.C.)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Learned State Law Officer has informed that the notice to the
informant has been served on 18.08.2026, but none is present on behalf of informant.
2. Heard Sri Anurag Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yogesh Mishra,
learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.207 of 2026, under Sections 137(2), 87,
65(1) B.N.s. and Section 3/4(3) P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police Station Karhal, District
Mainpuri, during the pendency of trial.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that
the victim appears to be a consenting party as per her statement recorded under
Section 183 B.N.S.S., and that, as per the ossification test report, her age is 18 years,
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. Accordingly, the bail
application is allowed.
5. Let the applicant- Shivam @ Shubham, 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.
6. 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…