Allahabad High Court
SARIK ALIAS SHARIQversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that, on prima facie facts of the victim’s consent and lack of alarm, the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sarik alias Shariq, who was charged under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) of the B.N.S. Act and Sections 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act for alleged sexual activity with a 17‑year‑old girl. The applicant claimed innocence, arguing that the FIR was delayed, the victim had travelled with him to Delhi voluntarily and never raised alarm, and that the age test could have a margin of error. The State opposed bail, contending that the applicant had betrayed the victim’s trust and that the relationship was non‑consensual. The Court, after reviewing the material and hearing counsel, found that the prima facie facts indicated the victim’s consent and the applicant’s clean record, and therefore granted bail subject to a personal bond, sureties and standard conditions. The order emphasized that bail does not affect the trial on merits and may be cancelled for any breach of conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite charges under the POCSO Act and B.N.S. provisions.
- Whether the alleged consent of the minor and the delay in filing the FIR justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- consent
- minor
- delay in FIR
- sureties
- personal bond
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44563 of 2025
Sarik Alias Shariq
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Annie Mohib, Mohd. Afzal Ansari,
Ravi Shankar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajesh Kumar Pandey, Shesh
Mani, Vijyeta Gupta
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.123 out of 269)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant, Ms. Vijyeta
Gupta, learned counsel for High Court Legal Service Committee as well as
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.305 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 87, 64(1) BNS and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Bilsi, District
Budaun, 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
FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay
caused. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement
recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she travelled with the
applicant all the way to Delhi and had not raised any alarm whatsoever
during the said sojourn.
5. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the victim, by
her looks, seems to be major, although she is stated to be 17 years old as per
the ossification test report. In view of the inherent margin of error in such
BAIL No. 44563 of 2025
2
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. The
applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 1.11.2025. He
undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Learned counsels for opposite party have vehemently opposed the bail
application on the ground that the applicant breached the trust of the victim
as he after establishing corporeal relationship with her had left her to go
nowhere and she was found alone in Shahdara, Delhi and somehow she
garnered courage and returned back to Budaun, and thereupon her statement
was recorded. As such, the applicant is not entitled to bail.
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 fact that victim was a consenting party and had gone with
the applicant all the way to Shahdara, Delhi and had not raised any alarm
whatsoever, 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.
8. Let the applicant- Sarik Alias Shariq, 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.)
May 14, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…