Allahabad High Court
SANJAY YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, subject to conditions, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Sanjay Yadav, who was charged under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(M) of the same Act and Sections 5(II) and 6 of the POCSO Act for allegedly enticing a minor girl away and committing sexual offences. The applicant contended that the victim, now an adult who has given birth, had voluntarily left home and entered into a matrimonial alliance with him, and that there was no forensic age verification. The State argued that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged incident. Weighing the nature of the offence, the lack of prior criminal record, the overcrowding of jails, and precedents on bail jurisprudence, the Court, without expressing a view on the merits, ordered the release of the applicant on bail subject to a personal bond, sureties and strict conditions. The order also directed verification of identities and electronic transmission of the release order to the jail.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged under the BNS and POCSO Acts for alleged offences involving a minor.
- Whether the absence of forensic age determination and the victim's current adult status affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 180, 183, 483, 64(2)(M), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 — s. 5(II), 6
Subjects
- bail
- child sexual offence
- POCSO
- age determination
- overcrowded jails
- judicial discretion
- false implication
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31029 of 2026
Sanjay Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajeev Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anil Kumar, G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri O.P. Singh, learned
AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.
2. 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. 104 of 2025 under Sections 137(2),
87, 64(2)(M) BNS and section 5(II)/6 POCSO Act registered at Police
Station Rath, District Hamirpur during pendency of the trial.
3. It is contended 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 was in love
with the applicant and she had left her home and had gone to Gujrat along
with the applicant and entered into matrimonial alliance with him with her
free consent. It is further submitted that the victim was aged about 16 years 8
months on the date of registration of the FIR as per school leaving certificate
of class VIIIth, however, there is no certificate of High School or certificate
of school first attended and no radiological examination has been conducted
for determination of her age. It is further submitted that the victim is now
major and in the meantime, she has given birth to a child. It is also submitted
that applicant, who has no criminal history, has been languishing in jail since
05.6.2026. It is lastly submitted that in case applicant is granted bail, he will
not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
BAIL No. 31029 of 2026
2
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the first
informant opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submit
that the victim was minor on the alleged date of occurrence aged about 16
years 8 months as per her school leaving certificate.
5. The alleged incident is said to have taken place on 08.3.2026 and FIR was
lodged on 11.3.2026 alleging therein that daughter of the first informant
aged about 17 years 8 months was enticed away by the applicant. The victim
was aged about 16 years 8 months on the date of registration of the FIR as
per her school leaving certificate of class VIIIth, however, there is no
certificate of High School or certificate of school first attended and no
radiological examination has been conducted for determination of her age. T
he victim in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS has
stated that she was in love with the applicant and she had left her home and
had gone to Gujrat along with the applicant on her own free will and entered
into matrimonial alliance with him with her free consent. It is submitted that
the victim is now major and in the meantime, she has given birth to a child.
Applicant, who has no criminal history, has been languishing in jail since
05.6.2026.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence,
evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into account overcrowded
jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as well as
considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of
Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya
Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding
grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I
am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
7. Let the applicant Sanjay Yadav involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following
conditions:-
(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
BAIL No. 31029 of 2026
3
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer
or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without
seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission
of any crime after being released on bail.
(iv) The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond
executed by him.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
9. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Verification
of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant as well as sureties
should be verified by the court concerned.
10. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to the
concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to ensure
early release of the applicant.
11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
concerned Jail Superintendent via e-mail or e-prison portal within 24 hours
in compliance of the order of the Apex Court in the case of Policy Strategy
for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021
decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
October 1, 2026
Madhurima
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…