Allahabad High Court
NEERAJ SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant had made out a prima‑facie case for bail and therefore granted bail.
Summary
The applicant, Neeraj Sharma, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 253 of 2025) involving alleged offences under Sections 137(2), 65(1), 87, 351(3), 352 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act. He claimed he was falsely implicated and argued that the alleged victim, a major who had married him, had voluntarily consented to the relationship, as reflected in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. The court, after considering the victim’s consent and the lack of any objection to the applicant’s claim of innocence, held that a prima‑facie case for bail existed. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in offences under the IPC and POCSO Act when the alleged victim has consented and the accused claims innocence.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 351(3), 352, 65(1), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3/4(2)
Subjects
- bail
- consent
- POCSO
- Indian Penal Code
- prima facie
- sureties
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31449 of 2025
Neeraj Sharma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anuj Bajpai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.158 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Learned State Law Officer has informed that the
notice to the informant has been served on 12.9.2025.
2. Heard Sri Anuj Bajpai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jai Kishan
Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material
placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.253 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 65(1), 87, 351(3), 352 BNS and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station
Nigohi, District Shahjahanpur, 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 seems to be a consenting party, as she met the applicant at a temple in
Haryana and is stated to have established corporeal relationship with him out
of her own sweet-will and had married him. The victim is major and she
herself mentioned her aged to be 18 years in her statement recorded U/s 183
BNSS. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 10.8.2025.
He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application
but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
BAIL No. 31449 of 2025
2
consideration the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183
B.N.S.S., which indicates her consent, and without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the
applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Neeraj Sharma, be released on bail on furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned,
subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not
tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the
trial court as required.
8. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 23, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…