Allahabad High Court

SAWANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sawan, who was arrested in connection with a case registered under Sections 64(1) and 69 of the B.N.S. and Sections 3/4(1) of the POCSO Act, alleging a sexual offence that allegedly occurred on 18‑10‑2025. The applicant contended that the victim was a major, that her age was incorrectly recorded in school records, and that the relationship between them was consensual, rendering the alleged offences untenable. The court noted the belated filing of the FIR, the absence of any criminal antecedents, and the lack of any material suggesting the applicant would tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or flee. Relying on the statements of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S. and on the Supreme Court’s decision in Prashant v. State, the court held that the prosecution had not established a prima facie case. Consequently, the court granted bail, subject to personal bond, sureties and conditions of appearance, non‑tampering and non‑pressurisation of witnesses. The bail order was pronounced on 19‑March‑2026.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged sexual offences under the B.N.S. and POCSO Act given the delay in filing the FIR.
Whether the alleged victim qualifies as a minor under the POCSO Act.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or fleeing the jurisdiction.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 180, 183, 28, 64(1), 69
POCSO Act — s. 3, 4(1)

Subjects

bail
sexual offences
consensual relationship
POCSO
delay in FIR
minor
evidence tampering
criminal antecedents

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4212 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Pati Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder for the State submits that the
notice of the present application has been served upon the
informant/opposite party no.2 on 10.02.2026 and C.W.C./opposite party no.3
on 13.02.2026. The receiving endorsements produced by learned A.G.A. are
taken on record. However, no one appears on behalf of the said opposite
parties nor any counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf.

2. Heard counsel for the applicant and learned Brief Holder for the State and
Ms. Pooja Tripathi, counsel for High Court Legal Services
Committee/opposite party no.4. Perused the material available on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 409 of 2025, under Sections 64(1), 69
B.N.S. and Section 3/4(1) of POCSO Act, Police Station- Phaphund,
District- Auraiya, during the pendency of trial.

4. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on
18.10.2025. The First information report was lodged on 26.10.2025. The
delay is fatal to the prosecution case. It is contended that the victim is major.
The age of the victim was incorrectly got registered in the school records by
the victim's parents to give her advantage in life. There is no lawful basis for
the age related entry of the victim in the school records. Placing reliance on
the statements of the victim under Section 180 B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S. it
is contended that the victim and the applicant were in consensual
relationship for considerable period of time. The consensual sexual
BAIL No. 4212 of 2026
2

relationship, which if continued between the parties for considerable period
of time, could not be said to have continued under the 'misconception of fact'
under Section 28 B.N.S. and could not be said to be 'sexual intercourse by
employing deceitful means' under Section 69 B.N.S. No offence is made out
against the applicant. The applicant never promised to marry the victim. In
support of his submission, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on
the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prashant vs.
State of NCT of Delhi, S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2793 of 2024 decided on
20.11.2024. The applicant is in jail since 27.10.2025 having no criminal
antecedents and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said
liberty.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged
belatedly. As per the statements of the victim under Section 180 B.N.S.S.
and 183 B.N.S.S., the victim and the applicant were in consensual
relationship for considerable period of time. The consensual sexual
relationship, which if continued between the parties for considerable period
of time, could not be said to have continued under the 'misconception of fact'
under Section 28 B.N.S. and could not be said to be 'sexual intercourse by
employing deceitful means' under Section 69 B.N.S. Moreover, the applicant
has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than four
months and after submission of the charge sheet there is no hope of early
conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been
brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would
either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness,
without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the
applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

7. Let the applicant Sawan, involved in the aforesaid case 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 the conditions
that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,
BAIL No. 4212 of 2026
3

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

March 19, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…