Govind Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

Govind Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted to applicant Govind on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence; no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; appearance before the trial court on dates fixed), with sureties to be verified before the release order is issued.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Govind, accused in Case Crime No. 15 of 2024 (Special Sessions Trial No. 1471 of 2024) under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Section 5J/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Hathgaon, District Fatehpur, is entitled to bail during the pendency of trial.

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the submissions of counsel, the delay in institution of the FIR and the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held that the applicant has made out a case for bail and allowed the bail application.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence, shall not pressurise/intimidate prosecution witnesses, and shall appear before the trial court on dates fixed; breach of any condition shall be a ground for cancellation of bail, and sureties are to be verified before issuance of the release order.

Key takeaways

Observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.ratio¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail allowed — High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16022 of 2025, order dated 28.5.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:91685). Applicant Govind sought bail in Case Crime No. 15 of 2024 (Special Sessions Trial No. 1471 of 2024) under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Section 5J/6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Hathgaon, District Fatehpur, for allegedly enticing away the informant's minor daughter (aged about 16 years as per the ossification test report and the FIR) on 16.01.2024 at about 7:00 p.m. Granting bail, the Court took into consideration the delay of about four days in institution of the FIR and the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she had gone with the applicant to Chitrakoot, married him, stayed with him as his wife while pregnant, and expressed willingness to stay with him only; the applicant was in jail since 02.08.2024 with no criminal history. The learned A.G.A. opposed bail on the ground that the victim gave birth to a dead girl. The applicant was ordered released on a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses and to appear before the trial court; the Court clarified that its observations would not affect the trial Judge's independent opinion.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:91685

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16022 of 2025

Applicant :- Govind Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Bajpai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

List has been revised.

Compliance affidavit filed today is taken on record.

Heard Sri Arun Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 01.05.2025.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.15 of 2024 (Special Sessions Trial No.1471 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) I.P.C. and Section 5J/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Hathgaon, District Fatehpur, during the pendency of trial.

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant aged about 16 years on 16.01.2024 at about 7:00 p.m.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., whereby she has stated that she had gone with the applicant to Chitrakoot and had married him and was staying with him as his wife and she was pregnant at that time. She has expressed her willingness to stay with the applicant only.

Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that subsequent to it, the victim was staying in the house of the informant and she aborted her pregnancy. She by her looks

seems to be major, although as per ossification test report and the statement in the FIR, she is 16 years old and a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.08.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim gave birth to a dead girl, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of the FIR and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

Let the applicant- Govind , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

Order Date :- 28.5.2025 (Ravi Kant)

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad