Allahabad High Court

CHHAVIKANT SON OF GAUTAM ALIAS CHHAVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 23 September 2026
Bench: ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL

Holding

The court granted bail to the applicant, holding that the circumstances did not warrant denial of liberty pending trial.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Chhavikant Gautam (alias Chhavi) in a criminal case (Crime No. 07 of 2025) involving alleged offences under IPC sections 137(2), 351(2), 64 and sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The victim, a minor aged 17 years 11 months, had left her home with the applicant and later returned; her statement under CrPC sections 180 and 183 admitted a consensual relationship and no evidence of sexual assault was found in the medical examination. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR and was falsely implicated, seeking bail on the ground of lack of incriminating evidence and his clean record. The State opposed bail but could not refute the factual matrix presented. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents on bail, the court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to standard conditions, and ordered his release.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate bail jurisprudence applicable to offences under the POCSO Act involving a minor victim?
Whether the absence of the applicant’s name in the FIR and lack of medical evidence of assault justify granting bail?
Whether the applicant’s alleged involvement and the nature of the charges warrant continued pre‑trial detention?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 180, 183
Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 351(2), 64
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4

Subjects

bail
POCSO Act
minor victim
IPC
Criminal Procedure Code
pre‑trial detention
jail overcrowding
court precedent

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32126 of 2025

Chhavikant Gautam Alias Chhavi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Surya Bhan Singh, Yadvendra Krishan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Shiv Nath Singh, Senior counsel assisted by Sri Yadvendra
Krishan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bhupendra Pal Singh, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 07 of 2025, under
Sections 137(2), 351(2), 64 BNS and Section 3/4 Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, Police Station- Dholana, District
Kasganj.

3. As per prosecution story, the victim left her house along with her friend
Bhedvati. However, after two days, Bhedvati returned back to her house but
the victim did not return. Thereafter FIR was lodged and victim was
recovered. The victim in her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183
BNSS, admitted this fact that she was in relationship with the applicant and
she herself left her house and also established physical relation with the
applicant but subsequently she came to know that the applicant is married.

4. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was
not named in the FIR. Subsequently his name was surfaced in the statement
of victim, who is about 18 years (17 years, 11 months and 30 days) and she
herself left her house along with the applicant as she is in relationship with
the applicant. Even medical examination of the victim does not show any
mark of injury or sign of sexual assault, therefore the applicant has been
falsely implicated by the parents of the victim after knowing that the
applicant and victim were in relationship. It is lastly submitted that charge
BAIL No. 32126 of 2025
2

sheet has been filed by the police, therefore, there is no requirement for
custodial interrogation. The applicant has explained the criminal history of
one case in the accompanying affidavit and he is languishing in jail since
22.06.2025. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail
and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for
bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the age of the victim
as well as statement recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS; coupled
with the medical examination of the victim and keeping in view the nature of
offence, evidence, complicity of 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. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.

7. Let the applicant- Chhavikant Gautam @ Chhavi 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
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.
BAIL No. 32126 of 2025
3

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.

10. Verification of mobile number as well as Aadhaar Card of the applicant
and sureties should also be conducted by the court concerned.

11. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of
downloaded copy of this order from the official website of High Court
Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel with the undertaking that
the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.

12. It is 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.

13. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
concerned Jail Superintendent via e-mail or e-prison portal and Trial
Court via e-mode within 24 hours in compliance of the orders 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 as well as in the case of Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan
and others vs State of Jharkhand and another, in Writ Petition
(Criminal) No.169 of 2025 decided on 29.05.2026.

14. Application, if any, stands disposed of.

September 24, 2026
A.Kr.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
AJAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…