Allahabad High Court

SONUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The court held that, prima facie, the applicant is entitled to bail and allowed the bail application.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sonu, accused under Sections 65(1) and 62 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and Section 18 of the POCSO Act, for an alleged offence involving a minor victim. The applicant claimed innocence, arguing that the FIR was delayed and that the victim’s statement under Sections 180 and 183 of the Evidence Act indicated consent, making the charge baseless. The victim, a 15‑year‑old girl, allegedly withdrew consent when her parents intervened, and the applicant had no prior criminal record. The State and the High Court Legal Service Committee opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. After evaluating the evidence and the consent statements, the court found a prima facie case for bail and ordered the applicant’s release on personal bond and sureties, subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused under the POCSO Act when the alleged victim is a minor but has given consent under Sections 180 and 183 of the Evidence Act.
Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the age of the victim affect the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 62, 65(1)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 180, 183
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 18

Subjects

bail
POCSO
minor victim
consent
FIR delay
Criminal Procedure Code
Evidence Act

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6419 of 2026

Sonu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bhaskar Bhadra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Aarti Singh, G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.88 out of 259)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised. Learned State Law Officer has informed that the
notice to the informant has been served on 19.02.2026, but none is present
on behalf of the informant.

2. Heard Sri Bhaskar Bhadra, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Aarti
Singh, learned counsel for the High Court Legal Service Committee, Sri Jai
Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the
material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.38 of 2026, under Sections 65(1),
62 BNS and Section 18 POCSO Act, Police Station Bithari Chainpur,
District Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.

4. The 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 for the said
delay. The victim is a consenting party, as is evident from her statements
recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, whereby she has stated that the
applicant was trying to commit rape with her and, in the meantime, her
parents reached there and the applicant ran away from the place of
occurrence; as such, it is a clear-cut case of false implication, although there
is no allegation of rape against the applicant.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the victim, by
BAIL No. 6419 of 2026
2

her appearance, seems to be major, although as per school certificate of
class-V, her date of birth is 10.05.2010; as such, she comes out to be 15
years, 8 months and 16 days old on the date of occurrence, but the said
document has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. The age has been
deliberately suppressed. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail
since 30.01.2026. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse
the liberty of bail.

6. Learned counsel for the High Court Legal Service Committee and learned
State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application but could
not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.

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 statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and
183 BNSS, which indicates her consent, 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- Sonu, 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 6, 2026
(Ravi Kant)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…