Allahabad High Court
SAJIDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- HARVIR SINGH
Holding
The Court held that the gravity of the alleged sexual assault on a minor warrants denial of bail during the trial.
Summary
The applicant, Sajid, filed a bail application in a criminal case (Crime No. 68 of 2026) involving alleged offences under Sections 137(2) and 351(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 9M/10 of the POCSO Act. He claimed innocence, alleging that the FIR was filed due to a monetary dispute with the informant and that he has no prior criminal record. The State, represented by the informant and the Additional Government Advocate, opposed bail, presenting the victim’s statement that the applicant committed sodomy on an 11‑year‑old boy. The Court examined the victim’s testimony and the nature of the alleged act, deeming it immoral and beyond the comprehension of a child. Considering the seriousness of the alleged sexual offence against a minor, the Court refused to enlarge bail during the trial. The bail application was therefore rejected.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting bail to an accused in a POCSO case involving alleged sexual assault of a minor?
- Whether the alleged immorality and seriousness of the offence preclude bail under the relevant statutes.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- sexual assault of minor
- immorality
- trial
- bail rejection
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9382 of 2026
Sajid
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Subhash Chandra Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Irshad Ahmad, Mohd Faiz
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the
informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on
record.
2. By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case
Crime No. 68 of 2026, under Sections 137(2), 351(2) of B.N.S. and
Section 9M/10 POCSO Act, P.S. Mawana, District-Meerut, is seeking
enlargement on bail during the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case
due to some ulterior motive. He next submitted that the allegations
leveled against the applicant in the First Information Report are totally
false and baseless, whereas, the truth is that a dispute existed between the
informant and the applicant regarding a monetary transaction, which the
informant reported to the police, leading to the arrest of the accused-
applicant. He lastly submitted that the applicant, who is in jail since
17.2.2026 and has no criminal antecedents to his discredit is entitled to be
enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant, as well as leaned
A.G.A. for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and
submitted that the accused-applicant has committed an immoral act
against a minor boy, which is evident from the statement of the alleged
victim (minor boy, aged about 11 years five months) recorded under
BAIL No. 9382 of 2026
2
Section 183 of B.N.S.S., copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-6 to
the affidavit accompanying bail application and in view of the above, the
applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
5. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record, as well as the statement of victim, who is a minor boy, aged about
11 years and five months, the act committed by the applicant, is not only
immoral, but beyond the imagination of a child of 11 years, who does not
understand the degree of pain and act, while being committed upon him,
in unnatural manner, i.e. the act of sodomy, this Court is not inclined to
enlarge the applicant on bail during the trial, hence this bail application is
rejected.
(Harvir Singh,J.)
April 21, 2026
Faridul
Digitally signed by :-
FAREEDUL HASAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…