Allahabad High Court

VIPINversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 16 September 2026
Bench: YOGESH DUBEY JOINT REGISTRAR JUDICIAL

Holding

The court held that bail is appropriate in the present case and allowed the application.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 87, 137(2), 65(1) of the same Act and Sections 5j(ii) and 6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant, Vipin, claimed false implication, asserted that the minor victim had voluntarily entered into a matrimonial alliance, and highlighted his clean criminal record and the prolonged pre‑trial detention since 4 July 2026. The State opposed bail, emphasizing that the victim was a minor (approximately 14 years and 10 months) and that her consent was legally immaterial, while noting the lack of radiological age verification. The Court, after reviewing the record and without expressing an opinion on the merits, found the circumstances suitable for bail and ordered release on a personal bond with strict conditions. The order also permitted the applicant to amend the prayer clause of his bail application during the day.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted in a POCSO case where the alleged victim is a minor and consent is immaterial.
Whether the absence of radiological age determination affects the bail decision.
Whether the applicant’s clean criminal record and the pendency of trial justify bail.
Whether amendment of the prayer clause in the bail application is permissible.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 351, 483, 65(1), 87
B.N.S.S. — s. 180, 183
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5j(ii), 6

Subjects

bail
POCSO Act
minor victim
consent immaterial
age determination
pre‑trial detention
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30948 of 2026

Vipin
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aushim Luthra, Harishchandra Yadav,
Utkarshni Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. Heard Sri Aushim Luthra, learned counsel for the applicant who has filed
supplementary affidavit which is taken on record, Sri Uma Shankar Mishra,
learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that during
investigation, section 5j(ii)/6 POCSO Act has been added and bail
application of the applicant has been rejected in the aforesaid section by the
learned Special Court and he seeks permission to make necessary correction
in the prayer clause.

3. Prayer aforesaid is allowed. He is permitted to do so during the course
of the day.

4. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer
to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 76 of 2026 under Sections 87,
137(2), 65(1) BNS, 3/4, 5j(ii)/6 POCSO Act registered at Police Station
Kailadevi, District Sambhal during pendency of the trial.

5. Learned A.G.A. states that notice has been served upon the first
informant.

6. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case and the victim in her statements
recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS has stated that she left her home
BAIL No. 30948 of 2026
2

and entered into matrimonial alliance with the applicant on her own free
will. It is further submitted that the victim is pregnant by five weeks and
three days and she is aged about 14 years and 10 months as per certificate of
class VIth, however, there is no certificate of High School or school first
attended and no radiological examination has been conducted for
determination of her age. It is further submitted that applicant, who has no
criminal history, has been languishing in jail since 04.7.2026 and he
undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been
pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is
no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail to
the applicant and submits that victim is a minor girl aged about 14 years and
10 months and her consent is immaterial. However, he does not dispute the
fact that date of birth of the victim has been determined on the basis of
certificate of class VIIIth and no radiological examination has been
conducted for determination of her age.

8. As per the FIR, applicant is said to have enticed away the daughter of the
first informant aged about 15 years, however, she has been recovered. The
victim has stated in her statements recorded under sections 180 and 183
BNSS that she left her home and entered into matrimonial alliance with the
applicant on her own free will. The victim is found pregnant by five weeks
and three days and she is aged about 14 years and 10 months as
per certificate of class VIth, however, there is no certificate of High School
or school first attended and no radiological examination has been conducted
for determination of her age. The victim has herself stated in her statement
under section 183 BNSS that she is aged about 18 years. Applicant, who has
no criminal history, has been languishing in jail since 04.7.2026

9. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected
from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find
it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED.

10. Let the applicant Vipin involved in the aforesaid case crime be released
on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the
following conditions :-
BAIL No. 30948 of 2026
3

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat,
or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer
or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)
recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek
any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are
present in the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

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

12. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of
determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free
to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led
unaffected by anything said in this order.

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
September 17, 2026
Madhurima

Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…