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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Suresh to be released on bail in the aforesaid FIR on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions: (a) bond undertaking to attend hearings; (b) not to commit any offence similar to that of which he is accused or suspected; (c) not directly or indirectly to make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or police officer or tampering with the evidence; trial to be expedited.

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Suresh, accused in FIR No.0021 of 2025 (P.S. Mandhata, District Pratapgarh) under S.65(1), 89, 351(3) BNS 2023, S.376(3), 313, 506 IPC and S.5 j (ii), 5I, 6 POCSO Act, 2012, is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Court's answer

Considering the age of the victim (about 17 years), the relationship lasting over seven to eight months, and that the victim's statement has already been recorded, there is no likelihood of the trial being adversely affected; accordingly the applicant, in custody since 06.02.2025 with no criminal history, is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Ratio / Principle

Trial of the case in question is directed to be expedited.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 12 (Pankaj Bhatia, J.), 20 November 2025: Bail application allowed. Suresh, in custody since 06.02.2025 with no criminal history, sought bail in FIR No.0021 of 2025, P.S. Mandhata, District Pratapgarh, charging him under S.65(1), 89, 351(3) BNS 2023, S.376(3), 313, 506 IPC and S.5 j (ii), 5I, 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, on allegations that he, a neighbouring lodger, enticed away the informant's daughter who worked nearby, had physical relations with her over about five months, she conceived, medicines were administered causing abortion. Victim's statements under S.180 BNSS and S.183 BNSS admitted relations over seven to eight months; her trial statement (Annexure-9) indicated some earlier statements were given out of threat of her mother; she tested positive for pregnancy; tentative age about 17 years. As her statement stood recorded and the trial was unlikely to be adversely affected, the applicant was held entitled to bail: release on a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, conditions (a)-(c) imposed, trial ordered to be expedited.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11346 of 2025

Suresh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) : Counsel for Applicant(s) Avinash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 12

HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.0021 of 2025, under sections – 65 (1), 89, 351 (3) BNS 2023, 376 (3), 313, 506 IPC and Section 5 j (ii), 5I, 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station - Mandhata, District – Pratapgarh.

Learned counsel for the applicant argues that in terms of the FIR it was alleged that the applicant who was staying as a neighbour nearby to the home where the daughter of the informant used to go and work and for the last five months after enticing her away physical relations were formed between them and subsequently she became pregnant. It was also stated that some medicines were also administered to her because of which she suffered abortion. In light of the said learned counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the statement of the victim under Section 180 BNSS wherein she admitted that for the last seven to eight months applicant was forming physical relations with her. In her statement recorded under section 183 BNSS somewhat similar statement was given. Statement of the victim has been recorded during trial which is on record as Annexure – 9 to the bail application. She has also stated that some of the statements given by her were out of threat of her mother. The victim was found to be positive for pregnancy. Tentative age of the victim is around 17 years. The applicant is in jail since 06.02.2025.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of the victim which is about 17 years coupled with the fact that relationship lasted over the span of seven to eight months and coupled with the fact that the statement of the victim has already been recorded, there is no likelihood that the trial being adversely affected, as such, the applicant who is in jail since 06.02.2025 and has no criminal history is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

Let the applicant - Suresh be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

(c) 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

BAIL No. 11346 of 2025

2

to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

It is however directed that the trial of the case in question shall be expedited.

November 20, 2025

mks

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

Digitally signed by :- MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench