Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SURAJversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The court allowed bail to the accused on a prima facie basis.

Summary

Suraj was arrested in a case registered as Crime No. 96 of 2025 under Sections 137(2) and 64(1) of the BNS Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, alleging sexual offences at an OYO hotel. The FIR was lodged 12 days after the alleged incident, and the victim’s statement suggested consent, while an ossification test indicated she was about 17 years old. The court noted that a radiologist’s opinion on age has a margin of error and that no medical evidence corroborated the allegations. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding age determination and the lack of substantive evidence, the court found that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the accused under the BNS Act and POCSO Act given the delay in filing the FIR, alleged consent, and the victim's age.
  • Whether the lack of medical evidence and the margin of error in age determination affect the bail decision.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • POCSO
  • consent
  • age of victim
  • delay in FIR
  • medical evidence
  • prima facie
  • sureties

Judgment

            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30196 of 2025

Suraj
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                     Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Bhaiya Lal Yadav, Krishna Kant
                                Dubey, Santosh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Lakshmi Kant Pandey, Sandeep
                                Kumar Pandey

Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 129 out of 262)

                           HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised. Counter affidavit filed today by learned counsel
for the informant is taken on record.

2. As informed by learned AGA, notice to the informant has been served
on 10.09.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant.

3. Heard Sri Bhaiya Lal Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Lakshmi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri
Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material
placed on record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 96 of 2025, under Sections
 137(2), 64(1) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station -
Meerganj, District - Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that
there is an inordinate delay of 12 days in lodging the FIR. The statement
of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS prima facie indicates that she had
accompanied the applicant to an OYO hotel, which suggests consent. As
per the ossification test report, the victim is stated to be about 17 years of
age. 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
                                                                                           BAIL No. 30196 of 2025
                                                                   2


                                    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.

                                    6. 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.

                                    7. Let the applicant- Suraj, 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.)
                                    April 2, 2026
                                    Siddhant




Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.