Allahabad High Court
SAWAN CHAUHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court found a prima facie case for bail and ordered the release of the applicant on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sawan Chauhan, who was arrested in connection with a case registered as Crime No.60 of 2025 under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) of the B.N.S.S. and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, that the alleged victim, though recorded as a 15‑year‑old, appeared to be an adult and had given consent in a statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., and that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of about two and a half months. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. After evaluating the material on record, the Court held that a prima facie case for bail existed, noting the victim’s consent and the lack of a clear explanation for the delay. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged offences under the B.N.S.S. and the POCSO Act where the victim’s consent is recorded.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the alleged minor status of the victim affect the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 137(2), 65(1), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 5, 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- consent
- minor
- FIR delay
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31452 of 2025
Sawan Chauhan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amarnath Tripathi, Kamal Kumar
Singh, Sudhir Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.159 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 1.8.2025.
2. Heard Sri Kamal Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused
the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.60 of 2025, under Sections 137(2),
87, 65(1) BNS and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Sureri, District Jaunpur,
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 stayed with the applicant at Surat,
whereby both are stated to have entered into a dispute as the applicant had
refused to marry her.
5. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR itself
is delayed by about two and a half months and there is no explanation of the
said delay caused. The victim, by her looks, seems to be major, although she
is stated to be 15 years old as per the FIR. There is no valid document to
suggest that victim is minor. The applicant has no criminal history and is in
jail since 24.5.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse
BAIL No. 31452 of 2025
2
the liberty of bail.
6. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application
but could 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 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.
8. Let the applicant- Sawan Chauhan, 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.
9. 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…