Allahabad High Court
RITIKversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted to the accused, subject to conditions, as the applicant had made out a case for bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ritik, who was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 137(2) and 64(2) of the B.N.S.S. and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The alleged victim, aged 15‑16 years according to an ossification test, claimed to be a consenting party, had married the accused and was pregnant. The applicant’s counsel argued that he was innocent, had no criminal record, and that the victim’s age could be uncertain, warranting a two‑year margin of error. The State and the informant opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. After reviewing the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. and the surrounding circumstances, the Court found that the applicant had made out a case for bail and granted it subject to strict conditions, including a financial deposit for the victim and non‑interference with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused under Sections 137(2), 64(2) of the B.N.S.S. and Sections 5,6 of the POCSO Act.
- Whether the alleged victim’s consent and marital status affect the bail consideration despite her minority.
- Whether the uncertainty in the victim’s age, as determined by ossification test, warrants a margin of error in assessing the offence.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- minor consent
- age determination
- criminal procedure
- marriage
- pregnancy
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33321 of 2026
Ritik
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gorakh Nath Trivedi, Rajesh Kumar,
Sonam Trivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Radhey Shyam Yadav
Court No. - 68
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Gorakh Nath Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Radhey Shyam Yadav, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P.
Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 13 of 2026, under Sections
137(2), 64(2) BNS and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Pilua, District Etah,
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 had called the applicant after
taking a room on rent at Sonipat and she has married him and has expressed
her willingness to live with him. She is stated to be pregnant at this point of
time. The applicant is ready to take care of his wife and the foetus in her
womb. The victim, by her physical appearance, seems to be major although
her age is 15-16 years as per ossification test report. In view of the inherent
margin of error in such tests, it is urged that a leverage of two years on the
upper side may be granted to the applicant while determining the age of the
victim.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no
BAIL No. 33321 of 2026
2
criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since
19.5.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have
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 u/s 183 BNSS, whereby
she seems to be consenting party and has married him and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, 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- Ritik, who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to
verification of sureties, with the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall take care of his wife (victim) and the offspring born
subsequently, if any. The applicant shall deposit (Fixed Deposit) a sum of Rs. 1
lakh in the name of victim within a period of three months from the date of his
release from jail.
(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial.
(iii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent
opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 18, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…