Allahabad High Court

ANURAG YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 12 April 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

Bail was granted to Anurag Yadav.

Summary

Anurag Yadav, a 19‑year‑old, was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 65(1) and 351(3) of the BNS Act and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, alleging that he raped a 13‑year‑old girl. The applicant contended that the relationship was consensual, that the victim did not raise alarm, and that the case was a misuse of the POCSO law. The State and the High Court Legal Service Committee opposed bail, but did not refute the applicant’s submissions. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in State of U.P. v. Anurudh & Anr (2026 INSC 47) and other High Court judgments emphasizing the need to assess consensual adolescent relationships and avoid misuse of the POCSO Act. Finding that the applicant had made out a prima‑facie case for bail, the Court ordered his release on personal bond and sureties, subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a POCSO case where the alleged act is a consensual relationship between adolescents
Whether the age of the alleged victim and the claim of consent affect the bail decision
Whether the POCSO Act is being misused to settle personal or familial disputes

Legislation cited

BNS Act — s. 351(3), 65(1)
Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act
POCSO Act — s. 4(2)

Subjects

bail
POCSO Act
consensual relationship
minor
misuse of law
juvenile justice
age of consent
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41995 of 2025

Anurag Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Janardan Yadav, Manikant Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pragati

Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.169 out of 258)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice to the
informant has been served on 28.11.2025, but none present on behalf of the
informant.

2. Heard Sri Prince Maurya, Advocate holding brief of Sri Janardan Yadav,
learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Pragati, learned counsel for High
Court Legal Service Committee, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.292 of 2025, under Sections
65(1), 351(3) of BNS and Sections 4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station-
Ahiraula, District- Azamgarh, 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
story narrated by the victim indicates her consent, as the applicant is stated
to have forcibly taken her on a motorcycle to a secluded place and
committed rape with her. She has not raised any alarm during the said
sojourn. As per school certificate, the victim was 13 years and 6 months old;
but there is no valid document to suggest that she was minor. The applicant
is a youth aged about 19 years old. A matter of a consensual relationship
between two adolescents has been converted into a criminal case by the
informant. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since
25.08.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the
BAIL No. 41995 of 2025
2

liberty of bail.

5. Learned counsel for the High Court Legal Service Committee and learned
A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute
the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.

6. Speaking on consensual relationships being criminalised, the Supreme
Court in its recent judgment STATE OF U.P. VS. ANURUDH & ANR.
reported in 2026 INSC 47 has stated in Para-19 as follows:

“19. As the conclusions drawn above indicate the impugned judgment and
order of the High Court has to be set aside on grounds of transgression of
the jurisdiction present and thereby lacking the appropriate directions. It
is to be set aside also because it goes against the statutory prescription
under the JJ Act. Be that as it may, this Court has not lost sight of the
well-intentioned purport of this order. The POCSO Act is one of the most
solemn articulations of justice aimed at protecting the children of today
and the leaders of tomorrow. Yet, when an instrument of such noble and
one may even say basic good intent is misused, misapplied and used as a
tool for exacting revenge, the notion of justice itself teeters on the edge of
inversion. Courts have in many cases sounded alarm regarding this
situation. Misuse of the POCSO Act highlights a grim societal chasm - on
the one end children are silenced by fear and their families are
constrained by poverty or stigma, meaning thereby that justice remains
distant and uncertain, and on the other hand, those equipped with
privilege, literacy, social and monetary capital are able to manipulate the
law to their advantage. The impugned judgment is one amongst many
where Courts have spoken out. Not only are instances rife where the age
of the victim is misrepresented to make the incident fall under the
stringent provisions of this law but also there are numerous instances
where this law is used by families in opposition to relationships between
young people. In Satish alias Chand v. State of U.P. Crl. Misc. Bail Appl.
No. 18596 of 2024, the High Court, noted that on few occasions concern
had been expressed by the Court with respect to application of the Act on
consenting adolescence when it comes to consensual relationships
between teenagers, four factors have been highlighted which, is crucial
for the Courts to consider:
BAIL No. 41995 of 2025
3

“A. Assess the Context: Each case should be evaluated on its
individual facts and circumstances. The nature of the
relationship and the intentions of both parties should be
carefully examined.
B. Consider Victim's Statement: The statement of the alleged
victim should be given due consideration. If the relationship
is consensual and based on mutual affection, this should be
factored into decisions regarding bail and prosecution.
C. Avoid Perversity of Justice: Ignoring the consensual
nature of a relationship can lead to unjust outcomes, such as
wrongful imprisonment. The judicial system should aim to
balance the protection of minors with the recognition of their
autonomy in certain contexts. Here the age comes out to be
an important factor.
D. Judicial Discretion: Courts should use their discretion
wisely, ensuring that the application of POCSO does not
inadvertently harm the very individuals it is meant to
protect.”

[See also: Mrigraj Gautam @ Rippu v. State of U.P.] 2023:AHC:204171

The Delhi High Court in Sahil v. the State NCT of Delhi
2024:DHC:6100 the Court noted in para 11 of the order that POCSO
cases filed at the behest of a girl’s family objecting to romantic
involvement with a young boy have become common place and
consequent thereto these young boys languish in jails. Therein, reference
is also made to an order of the Gujarat High Court (Jayantibhai
Babulbhai Alani v. State of Gujarat 2018 SCC Online Guj. 1223), where
the Court noted that considering the closeness in age of the prosecutrix
and the accused as also the fact that she had left home of her own accord
observed that the application deserved consideration.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of
the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application
is allowed.
BAIL No. 41995 of 2025
4

8. Let the applicant- Anurag Yadav, be released on bail on furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned,
subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not
tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the
trial court as required.

9. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 13, 2026
(Ravi Kant)

Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…