Allahabad High Court

SALMAN KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 22 April 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The court held that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail and therefore granted bail.

Summary

Salman Khan applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 63 of 2025) involving charges under the IPC, POCSO Act, and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated, noting that the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the Evidence Act made no allegation against him and that the victim’s age was uncertain due to the inherent margin of error in radiological dating. The counsel highlighted the applicant’s clean record and his willingness to cooperate with the trial. The State opposed bail, but the court, relying on precedents that radiologists cannot pinpoint exact dates of birth, found the prima facie case for bail was established. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, sureties, and standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused despite serious charges under the IPC, POCSO Act and the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act.
Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the Evidence Act, which makes no allegation against the accused, creates a presumption of false implication.
Whether the uncertainty in the victim’s age determination affects the applicability of the POCSO provisions.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 183
Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 351(2), 65(1), 87
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 3/4
Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act — s. 3/5

Subjects

bail
false implication
victim statement
age determination
POCSO Act
religious conversion law
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31656 of 2025

Salman Khan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prabhakar Singh, Shyam Sunder
Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Arjun Singh Yadav, G.A.

Court No. - 65
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Shyam Sunder Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Arjun Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the informant as well as 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.63 of 2025, under Sections 87,
137(2), 65(1), 351(2) BNS, 3/4 POCSO Act and 3/5 of UP Prohibition of
Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, Police Station Chandpur, District
Fatehpur, 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 in her statement recorded U/s 183 BNSS has not whispered a single
word against the applicant, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication.
The victim by her looks seems to be major, although she is stated to be 16
years old as per the ossification test report. The applicant has no criminal
history and is in jail since 15.5.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the
trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have
vehemently opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the
learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.
BAIL No. 31656 of 2025
2

6. The Supreme Court in Jaya Mala vs. State of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538
and Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC
192 has opined that the radiologist cannot predict the correct date of birth
rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side.

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 victim recorded U/s 183 BNSS, whereby she
has not levelled any allegation against the applicant, 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- Salman Khan, 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…