Virendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

Virendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release of applicant Virendra on bail in Case Crime No. 226 of 2024 on a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to three conditions: no tampering with prosecution evidence, no pressurizing of prosecution witnesses, and appearance on every date fixed by the trial court unless exempted.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Virendra, charged in Case Crime No. 226 of 2024 under Sections 376(2) n I.P.C. and Section 5J(2)/6 & 5L/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Police Station Rampur Mathura, District Sitapur), should be released on bail — this being his second bail application.

Court's answer

Considering that the applicant has no previous criminal history, has been languishing in jail since 18.07.2024, and that the Additional Government Advocate for the State could not dispute these aspects, the court held the aforesaid facts sufficient to make out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail, expressly without making any observation affecting the merits of the case.

Ratio / Principle

The bail application was allowed and the applicant-Virendra was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the magistrate/court concerned, subject to conditions: (i) he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) he shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; and (iii) he shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.), decision dated December 11, 2025: the second bail application of Virendra in Case Crime No. 226 of 2024 (Sections 376(2) n I.P.C. and Section 5J(2)/6 & 5L/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Rampur Mathura, District Sitapur) was ALLOWED, the first application having been rejected as not pressed on 12.05.2025. After that rejection, the informant and the victim, examined by the trial court, supported the prosecution case in examination-in-chief but categorically denied the allegation in cross-examination; DNA profile matching sought by the applicant could not be done because the victim's still-born child (delivered 07.08.2024) was buried and the burial place could not be identified. Finding the applicant without criminal history and in custody since 18.07.2024, and without any observation affecting the merits, the court enlarged him on bail on a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence, pressurizing witnesses, and requiring attendance on all trial dates.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12436 of 2025

Virendra

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Amir Khan, Surya Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 17

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Heard Sri Surya Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mayank Sinha, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the records.

This is the second application seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 226 of 2024, under Sections 376(2) n I.P.C. and Section 5J(2)/6 & 5L/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Rampur Mathura, District Sitapur. The first bail application has been rejected as not pressed by means of an order dated 12.05.2025.

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 03.06.2024 stating that the applicant was seeing the complainant's sister aged about 15 years under the allurement marrying her and kept on making physical relations with her. When the complainant's sister became pregnant the applicant did not marry her.

On 09.08.2024 the applicant had filed an application before the learned trial court stating that the applicant did not ever make any physical relations with the victim and to verify the correctness of the allegations DNA profile of the applicant and the victim's child be matched. The inspector in charge submitted a report in furtherance of the aforesaid application stating that the victim had delivered a still born child on 07.08.2024 and the dead body had been burried. The complainant stated that he could not identify the place where the dead body was burried. In these circumstances the DNA profile

BAIL No. 12436 of 2025

2

matching could not be done.

Subsequent to the rejection of first bail application the informant and the victim have been examined by the learned trial court and both of them supported the prosecution case in their examination-in-chief but they have categorically denied the prosecution allegation in their cross-examination.

In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter. He has submitted that the information of bail application has been delivered to the victim/informant through police.

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 18.07.2024 and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

Let the applicant-Virendra be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.

December 11, 2025

Ram.

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench