Allahabad High Court

SHAVEJversusState of U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 24 February 2026
Bench: AJAY BHANOT

Holding

The Court allowed the bail application, granting bail to the applicant subject to conditions.

Summary

Shavej, who has been in custody since 6 December 2023, applied for bail in a case involving offences under Sections 366, 368, 376(3), 506, 120‑B of the IPC and Sections 3/4(2) and 16/17 of the POCSO Act. The trial court had rejected the bail application. The applicant’s counsel argued that the alleged victim was an adult who had a consensual relationship and a registered marriage with the applicant, that there were contradictions and medical evidence showing the victim was 21 years old, and that the prosecution lacked medical proof of rape. The court noted the absence of credible evidence, the risk of indefinite detention, and the applicant’s clean record, and, without addressing the merits, allowed the bail application with conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and to ensure appearance in court.

Issues considered

The applicability of bail in serious offences including rape and POCSO when the alleged victim is claimed to be an adult and the relationship consensual
Whether contradictions in the victim's age and lack of medical evidence justify granting bail
Whether the right to a speedy trial and risk of indefinite incarceration warrant bail
Whether the applicant poses a flight risk or a danger of influencing witnesses

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161, 164
Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 366, 368, 376(3), 506
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 16, 17, 3/4(2)

Subjects

bail
rape
POCSO
consensual relationship
age of victim
speedy trial
false allegations
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37306 of 2024

Shavej
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Kumar Mishra, Praveen Yadav,
Sandeep Singh, Sunil Vashisth
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : J.B. Singh, G.A., Manisha Chaturvedi

Court No. - 49
HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

The applicant is in jail since 06.12.2023.

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be
enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 200 of 2023 at Police
Station-Kharkhauda, District-Meerut under Sections 366, 368,
376(3), 506, 120-B I.P.C., Section 3/4(2) and 16/17 POCSO
Act.

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the trial
court on 19.05.2024.

The following arguments made by Shri Anand Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be
satisfactorily refuted by J.B. Singh, learned counsel assisted by
Shri Kunwar Gajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the
informant and Shri Suchit Tandon, learned AGA from the
record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

1. The applicant the victim resided in the same neighbourhood
and grew intimate over the years. The couple had a consensual
relationship.

2.The victim eloped with the applicant and the couple got
married of their free will. The marriage was also duly registered.

3. The F.I.R. is the result of opposition of the victim's family to
BAIL No. 37306 of 2024
2

the aforesaid relationship.

4. The victim was incorrectly depicted as a minor of 15 years in
the F.I.R. only to falsely implicate the applicant under the
stringent provisions of the POCSO Act and cause his indefinite
imprisonment.

5. There are material contradictions in the age of the victim as
recorded in various prosecution documents. The victim is infact
a major.

6. The medical report drawn up to determine the age of the
victim records that the victim is 21 years of age.

7. The victim has made false and aggravated allegations against
the applicant in her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and
Section 164 Cr.P.C. at the behest of her parents to save the
failing prosecution case.

8. The victim stayed with the applicant at Ghaziabad and Delhi
for 18 days. She was present at public places. The victim was
never confined or bound down in any manner. She did not raise
an alarm nor did she resist the applicant. Her conduct shows that
she was a consenting party.

9. Major inconsistencies in the F.I.R. statements of the victim
under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. discredit the
prosecution case.
10. Medical evidence to corroborate commission of rape by the
applicant with the victim has not been produced by the
prosecution.

11. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated with
the police investigations and had joined the trial.

12. The applicant never influenced witnesses or tampered with
the evidence at any stage.

13. The applicant did not adopt dilatory tactics or impede the
BAIL No. 37306 of 2024
3

trial proceedings in any manner.

14. The trial is moving at a snail's pace and shows no sign of
early conclusion. The applicant is not responsible for the delay
in the trial.
15. The victim has already been examined. There is no
possibility of the applicant influencing the aforesaid witness.

16. The prosecution proposes to examine 21 prosecution
witnesses to bring home the charges. However, till date only
four prosecution witnesses have been examined.

17. Prosecution is deliberately delaying the trial only to prolong
the incarceration of the applicant.

18. Inordinate delay in concluding trial will lead to an indefinite
imprisonment of the applicant without there being any credible
evidence to implicate him in the offence.

19. The right of the applicant to speedy trial has been violated.
20. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from
the instant case.

21. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law
abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and
undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no
possibility of the applicant influencing witnesses, tampering
with the evidence or reoffending.

In wake of the preceding discussion and without making any
observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is
allowed.

Let the applicant-Shavej be released on bail in the aforesaid case
crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below.
The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence
BAIL No. 37306 of 2024
4

any witness during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date
fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due
application of mind in light of the judgement passed by this
Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.
Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023).

The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the
applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary
demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to
the socioeconomic status of the applicant.

(Ajay Bhanot,J.)
February 25, 2026
Vandit

Digitally signed by :-
VANDIT AGRAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…