ARYAN VERMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7185 of 2025

Aryan Verma
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Mohammad Sadab Khan, Ram Kishun
                                Misra, Shiv Shankar Pal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.96 out of 277)

                         HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the
informant has been served on 12.3.2025.

2. Heard Sri Mohammad Sadab Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, 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.143 of 2024, under Sections
115(2), 351(2), 65(1) BNS, 5(L)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Chamanganj,
District Kanpur Nagar, 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
victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded
under Section 183 B.N.S.S. The victim, by her looks, seems to be major,
although she is stated to be 14 years old as per the ossification test report.
The applicant himself is a youth of 18 years old. The matter of consensual
relationship between two adolescents has been converted to a criminal case
by the informant. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since
14.11.2024. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the
liberty of bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could
not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
                                                                  BAIL No. 7185 of 2025
                                    2

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:

           “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.
                                                               BAIL No. 7185 of 2025
                                  3


           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, taking into
consideration the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183
B.N.S.S., 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- Aryan Verma, 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
                                                                                              BAIL No. 7185 of 2025
                                                                      4


                                    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 20, 2026
                                    Vikas Verma




Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad