Allahabad High Court

HARENDRA @ HARINDRA CHAUHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA

Holding

The court allowed the applicant’s anticipatory bail application.

Summary

The applicant, Harendra Chauhan, sought anticipatory bail in a criminal case under Sections 87, 137(2), 64(1) of the CrPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, alleging that the alleged victim, a 17‑year‑old girl, was his consensual partner and that they had married and she was pregnant with his child. The State opposed bail, arguing that the victim was a minor and that any consent was legally meaningless, also questioning the validity of a marriage between persons of different religions. The court examined the victim’s statements and affidavit, which indicated a voluntary romantic relationship and marriage, and noted the absence of any medical proof of the victim’s age. While acknowledging the victim’s minority, the court found no evidence of coercion, force, or criminal antecedents against the applicant. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the underlying offence.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a POCSO case where the alleged victim is a minor who claims consensual relationship and marriage.
Whether the consent of a minor under the POCSO Act is legally valid.
Whether the alleged inter‑religious marriage affects the applicability of bail provisions.
Whether the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents and the circumstances justify the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 137(2), 64(1), 87
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4

Subjects

anticipatory bail
POCSO Act
minor consent
inter‑religious marriage
Criminal Procedure Code
bail conditions
sexual offences

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 2334 of 2026

Harendra @ Harindra Chauhan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raghvendra Pratap Rajan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicant, the Learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the record.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No.337 of 2025, under Sections 87, 137(2), 64(1)
BNS and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
(POCSO) Act, 2012, Police Station- Lalpur/Pandeypur, District-
Varanasi, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

3. The Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice as mandated under the
POCSO Act has been served on 10.3.2026.

4. The Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that the victim is
major. He further contends that the victim and the applicant had
performed marriage. There was no threat, coercion or undue influence.
The victim is said to be pregnant with the applicant's child. The applicant
has no criminal antecedents.

5. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail and has stated that the victim is a minor aged about 17 years and
consent of a minor is meaningless. The Learned A.G.A. has also stated
that the victim being pregnant with the applicant's child clearly shows that
the applicant has sexually assaulted the victim. The Learned A.G.A.
however, has been unable to dispute the fact that the applicant is having
NABAIL No. 2334 of 2026
2

no criminal antecedents.

6. The Learned A.G.A. has raised an objection that the applicant and the
victim belong to different religions and could not have been performed
marriage.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for
the parties and perused the material brought on the record.

8. Prima facie, it appears that the applicant and the victim were in a
relationship. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 183
BNSS has clearly stated that she had gone with the applicant and had
married with him. They had also started living together on rent. She was
caught by the police when she had gone for some work to the ring road.
She has stated that they had married as the victim had been pregnant with
the applicant's child.

9. So far as the objection raised by the Learned A.G.A. is concerned,
although the same is sustainable, however, the statement of the victim
does not indicate that she was forcibly made to convert to another
religion. Furthermore, the victim has filed an affidavit before the Sessions
Court, at the time of consideration of the bail application of the applicant,
in which, she has clearly stated in paragraph No.3 that she is in love with
the applicant and is pregnant with his child. She out of her own sweet
will, had married to the applicant and she wanted to live with him.

10. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, in
the prima-facie opinion of the Court, the applicant and the victim were in
a romantic relationship. The victim is stated to be 17 years of age and is
on the cusp of majority. There is no medical determination of age. An
application was moved by the mother of the applicant before the
A.C.J.M., Court No.1, Varanasi seeking radiological examination of the
victim for determination of her age, however, the same has been rejected.

11. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed
above and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I
deem it fit to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.
NABAIL No. 2334 of 2026
3

12. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant
is allowed.

13. In the event of the arrest of the applicant - Harendra @ Harindra
Chauhan, he shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on
anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the
police station/Court concerned with the following conditions:-

i. the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police
officer as and when required;

ii. that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer;

iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission
of the Court;

iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness;

14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

15. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively
for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be
considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
March 19, 2026
Sachin

Digitally signed by :-
SACHIN TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…