Allahabad High Court

SONU SAHUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 17 March 2026
Bench: GAUTAM CHOWDHARY

Holding

The court granted bail to the accused, finding that the applicant had made out a case for bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sonu Sahu, who had been in custody since 30‑10‑2025 in connection with a case involving alleged offences under Sections 87, 137(2), 65(1) of the B.N.S., and Sections 5L/6 of the POSCO Act. An ossification test revealed that the alleged victim was about 17 years old, making the victim a minor, though the applicant's counsel argued the victim was a consenting adult and that the accusations were false. The State opposed bail, contending that innocence could not be determined at the pre‑trial stage and that the applicant might reoffend if released. After reviewing the evidence, the court found that the applicant had made out a case for bail and, without expressing a view on the merits, granted bail subject to strict conditions. The bail order required a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, and committing similar offences.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused given the victim is a minor as per ossification test.
Whether the alleged consent of the victim negates the criminal liability.
Whether the pre‑trial stage permits denial of bail on the ground of potential reoffending.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 137(2), 65(1), 87
POSCO Act — s. 5L, 6

Subjects

bail
minor victim
ossification test
consent
pre‑trial detention
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41378 of 2025

Sonu Sahu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Devottam Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajni Ojha

Court No. - 65
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

1. Pursuant to the earlier order of this Court, a sealed envelop has been
received, which has been opened today in the Court. The envelop contains
the report of the concerned Court along with ossification test report. The
ossification test of the victim shows that the victim is aged about 17 years
and the same is taken on record.

2. Office vide its report dated 12.01.2025 has reported that notice issued
to the first informant has been refused to be accepted by him. It is made
clear that this Court vide order dated 13.01.2026 had directed for
ossification test of the victim and since the ossification report has been
received by this Court, therefore the pendency of the instant application
before this Court is well within the knowledge of the informant/victim,
thus notice is deemed to be sufficient upon the informant of the case.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Rajni Ojha learned
counsel for the High Court Legal Services, learned A.G.A for the State
and peruse d the record.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that according to the
ossification test, the victim's age is about 17 years, when as a matter of
fact, the major. Learned counsel further argued that perusal of the
statements of the victim would go to show that the victim is a consenting
party. Learned counsel thus argued that the victim is a consenting party
and that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due
to ulterior motive. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the
falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed
BAIL No. 41378 of 2025
2

before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led
to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has
also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate
with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before
the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions
which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that
applicant is languishing in jail since 30.10.2025.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the
applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be
adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.
In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar
activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, and all attending
facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on
merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made
out a case for bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.

7. Let applicant Sonu Sahu involved in Case Crime No.124 of 2025
under Sections 87, 137 (2), 65(1) B.N.S., Section 5L/6 of POSCO Act,
Police Station Bansdeeh, District Ballia, be released on bail on furnishing
a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following condi
tions:-

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of
which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

v) 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence.
BAIL No. 41378 of 2025
3

8. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the trial Court shall be
at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
March 18, 2026
S.Ali

Digitally signed by :-
SHAUKAT ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…