Allahabad High Court
SAURABHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted to the applicant.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Saurabh, accused under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m) of the B.N.S. and Sections 5(L) and 6 of the POCSO Act, alleging sexual offences. The applicant claimed innocence, stating that the alleged victim, a 17‑year‑old, had given a consent statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. and that the age determination by radiology could have a margin of error of one to two years. The State opposed bail but did not refute the applicant’s submissions. Citing Supreme Court precedents on age estimation, the Court found that the applicant had made out a case for bail and granted it subject to personal bond, sureties and conditions to prevent tampering or intimidation. The order emphasized that the bail decision would not prejudice the trial judge’s independent assessment of the evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m) B.N.S. and 5(L)/6 POCSO Act where the alleged victim is 17 years old and has recorded consent.
- Whether the margin of error in radiological age estimation affects the applicability of POCSO provisions.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 137(2), 183, 64(2)(m)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 5(L), 6
Subjects
- bail
- consent
- age of victim
- POCSO
- radiological age estimation
- sureties
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30226 of 2025
Saurabh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amar Singh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhishek Gupta, G.A., Shweta Singh
Rana
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No.133 out of 262)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Amar Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the informant, Ms. Shweta Singh
Rana, learned counsel for opposite party no.4 as well as Sri Sunil Kumar,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 149 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 64(2)(m) BNS and 5(L)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Beeta-2,
District Gautam Buddha Nagar, 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
under Section 183 B.N.S.S. Both the parties are ready to marry each other as
agreed upon by their family members. The victim, by her looks seems to be
major, although her age has come out to be 17 years as per ossification test
report and a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the
upper side.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no
criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since
11.4.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
BAIL No. 30226 of 2025
2
6. Learned A.G.A., learned counsel for opposite party no.4 and learned
counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application but
could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
7. In the judgement of Supreme Court passed 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 opined that the radiologist cannot
predict the correct date of birth rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years
on either side.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, whereby
she seems to be consenting party and without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a
case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant- Saurabh, who is involved in aforementioned case
crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to
following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties
be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent
opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 2, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…