Anmol @ Shastri vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

Anmol @ Shastri vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant should be released on bail during trial in Case Crime No. 396 of 2024 (alleged enticing away and rape of a minor girl), given the victim's minority and the contested question of consent.

Court's answer

Taking the victim's age as 13 years per the ossification test report, the Court held that even granting a two-year leverage on the upper side she falls much below the age of consent.

Ratio / Principle

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court declined to release the applicant on bail.

Key takeaways

Trial court directed to decide the pending case expeditiously, in view of the Supreme Court principles relied upon in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.obiter¶13
Clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to disposal of the bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.obiter¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 65, Krishan Pahal, J.), decision dated 28.4.2025: bail application of Anmol @ Shastri REJECTED. Applicant, in custody since 30.11.2024, sought bail during trial in Case Crime No. 396 of 2024, U/S 137(2), 87, 64 B.N.S., 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Fafund, District Auraiya, alleging he enticed away the informant's minor daughter (about 14 years) on 27.11.2024. Defence arguments (one-day FIR delay without explanation, victim as consenting party who left voluntarily on a motorcycle, deliberate suppression of her age in the FIR) did not avail. Relying on the State's submission that the ossification test report places the victim at 13 years, the Court held that even a two-year upward leverage leaves her much below the age of consent and, without expressing any opinion on merits, declined bail. Trial court directed to decide the case expeditiously per Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab, 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702, if no legal impediment; observations expressly confined to the bail-disposal stage with no bearing on trial merits.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64768

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11075 of 2025

Applicant :- Anmol @ Shastri Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Chandra Solanki Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

List has been revised. Compliance affidavit filed by learned A.G.A is taken on record. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice has been served to the informant on 25.3.2025.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 396 of 2024, U/S 137(2), 87, 64 B.N.S. and 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Fafund, District Auraiya, during the pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

The applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant aged about 14 years on 27.11.2024.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. It is stated that he has nothing to do with the said offence.

The FIR is delayed by one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

The victim is the consenting party, as she had gone with the applicant on a motorcycle and was raped by him by disrobing her.

The age of the victim has been deliberately suppressed by the

informant in the FIR.

The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.11.2024, having no criminal history and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the victim was minor, being 13 years old as per the ossification test report, as such, her consent, if any, cannot be taken into consideration in the eyes of law.

CONCLUSION:

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the victim being 13 years old, even if a leverage of two years is granted on the upper side, she falls much below the age of consent, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

The bail application is, accordingly, rejected .

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Shalini

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad