Allahabad High Court
MAHESH PRASADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant had established sufficient grounds for bail and therefore granted bail subject to conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Mahesh Prasad, who was arrested in a case under Sections 137(2), 87, 64 of the B.N.S. Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed innocence, arguing that the alleged victim, a 17‑year‑old, had consented to the relationship and was married to him, and that the ossification test used to determine her age could be off by up to two years. The State opposed bail but did not refute the applicant’s submissions. The court, after reviewing the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S. Act and noting the applicant’s clean record and willingness to cooperate, found that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Consequently, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions including a Rs. 1 lakh fixed deposit in the victim’s name, non‑tampering with evidence, and appearance before the trial court. The order clarified that the bail decision would not prejudice the trial judge’s independent assessment of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused under the B.N.S. Act and POCSO Act when the alleged victim is a minor who allegedly consented and is married to the accused.
- Whether the margin of error in the ossification test for age determination affects the bail decision.
- Whether the applicant’s lack of prior criminal history and willingness to cooperate justify bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. Act — s. 137(2), 183, 64, 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- consent
- minor
- POCSO Act
- age determination
- criminal procedure
- surety
- marriage
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33380 of 2026
Mahesh Prasad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Sunil Kumar
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to
the informant has been served on 4.9.2026.
2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Singh,
learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 259 of 2026, under Sections
137(2), 87, 64 BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Padrauna,
District Kushinagar, 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 travelled with the applicant to
several places including Punjab and has married him and has expressed her
willingness to live with him. The victim, by her physical appearance, seems
to be major although her age is 17 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
criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since
BAIL No. 33380 of 2026
2
19.6.2026 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 A.G.A. 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 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- Mahesh Prasad, 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 is being released on bail on the assurance of the counsel for the
applicant that applicant is very much willing to take care of his wife (victim). The
applicant shall deposit (Fixed Deposit) a sum of Rs. 1 lakh in her name 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…