Allahabad High Court

SONUversusSTATE 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 subject to conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sonu, who was arrested in Crime No. 86 of 2025 under Section 137(2) of the IPC, Section 65(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated, asserted that the alleged victim was a consenting party who had previously eloped with him, and highlighted his clean criminal record and willingness to cooperate with the trial. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. After evaluating the facts, the victim’s alleged consent, and the absence of any indication that the applicant would tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses, the Court concluded that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail was granted on the condition of a personal bond, two sureties, and compliance with specific undertakings. 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 in a case involving offences under Section 137(2) IPC and Sections 65(1), 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act when the alleged victim is said to be a consenting party.
Whether the applicant’s lack of prior criminal history and the circumstances of the alleged consent justify release on bail.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4, 65(1)

Subjects

bail
consent
POCSO Act
IPC Section 137
criminal procedure
sureties
trial

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30307 of 2025

Sonu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aishwarya Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sl. No.140 out of 262)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice to the
informant has been served on 26.8.2025.

2. Heard Sri Utkarsh, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Aishwarya
Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri A.K. Mishra,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 86 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 65(1) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Ahmadgarh, District
Bulandshahr, 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 the fact that she had eloped
with the applicant earlier on also and the applicant was granted bail in the
said case. The victim had again gone with the applicant in the instant case.

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
7.6.2025 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
not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
BAIL No. 30307 of 2025
2

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 the victim had eloped with the applicant earlier on
also as such, 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- Sonu, 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…