Allahabad High Court

CHAHATversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 1 April 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and granted bail with conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Chahat in a criminal case (Crime No. 280 of 2025) under Sections 137(2), 65(2) of the B.N.S.S and Sections 5(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed innocence, asserting that the alleged victim, though a minor, gave consent as per her statement recorded under Section 183 of the CrPC and that there was no medical or documentary proof of her age. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the applicant's submissions. Noting the lack of medical corroboration, the victim's alleged consent, and the applicant’s clean record, the Court found sufficient grounds to grant bail. Bail was ordered on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence, intimidation of witnesses, and mandating appearance before the trial court. The Court clarified that its observations would not prejudice the trial judge’s independent assessment.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a case under Sections 137(2), 65(2) B.N.S.S and 5(m)/6 POCSO Act where the alleged victim is a minor but claims consent and there is no medical evidence.
Whether the absence of documentary proof of the victim's age and lack of medical corroboration justify bail.
Whether the applicant's lack of prior criminal history and willingness to cooperate affect the bail decision.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 137(2), 65(2)
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) — s. 183
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) — s. 5(m), 6

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
POCSO
consent
minor
evidence
trial
sureties

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30231 of 2025

Chahat
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Saransh Singh, Ziya Uddin
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sl. No.134 out of 262)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to
the informant has been served on 26.8.2025.

2. Heard Ms. Ziya Uddin, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri
J.K. Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on
record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 280 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 65(2) BNS and 5m/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Partapur, District
Meerut, 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. whereby she is stated to have met the applicant
by chance. The victim by her looks seems to be major. Although it is stated
that she was minor but there is no documentary evidence to prove her age.
There is no medical corroboration of the incident.

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
11.7.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could
BAIL No. 30231 of 2025
2

not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the fact that there is no medical corroboration of the incident
and 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.

8. Let the applicant- Chahat, 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.

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

10. 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…