Dismissed¶14

Gaurav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC28 Jul 2025BAIL/20577/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected — minor victim; consent of a minor of no worth; POCSO 5(J)/6 with BNS 137(2)/87/65(1) enticement-offence; school-record DOB (20.07.2010) prevailed over CMO age opinion (above 18, below 21 years); victim delivered a child; statements under S.180 and S.183 BNSS claimed consensual elopement/marriage; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Samit Gopal, J.; order dated 29.7.2025; Case Crime No. 26 of 2025, P.S. Heempur Deepa, District Bijnor; applicant in jail since 24.03.2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC:125317.

What did the court decide?

Per school records the victim is a minor; therefore the alleged physical relationship is an offence, and the consent of a minor is of no worth, notwithstanding the defence reliance on the victim's statements and the CMO's age opinion. ¶13

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether enlargement on bail during trial should be granted to applicant Gaurav in connection with Case Crime No. 26 of 2025 registered under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) B.N.S. and 5(J)/6 POCSO Act, relating to alleged enticement of and physical relationship with the victim. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Having heard counsel and perused the record, the court found the applicant named in the F.I.R. and in the victim's statements recorded during investigation, the victim a minor per school records, and physical-relationship allegations against the applicant; consequently the bail application is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.

¶13

Key takeaways

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the court did not find it a fit case for bail and rejected the bail application.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Samit Gopal, J.), CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 20577 of 2025, Order dated 29.7.2025 (N.C. 2025:AHC:125317) — Bail REJECTED. Applicant Gaurav sought enlargement on bail during trial in Case Crime No. 26 of 2025 (P.S. Heempur Deepa, District Bijnor) under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) B.N.S. and 5(J)/6 POCSO Act. FIR lodged 07.03.2025 by Smt. Rajo Devi alleging Gaurav lured and enticed away her daughter (school-record date of birth 20.07.2010) on 04.03.2025 at about 11:30 p.m.; physical relationship alleged; victim subsequently pregnant and delivered a child. Defence relied on victim's recovery on 21.03.2025 and her statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS claiming she went out of her own sweet will, married the applicant and lived in Noida as his wife; CMO opined her age above 18 and below 21 years; applicant claimed no criminal history and custody since 24.03.2025. Court held: per school records the victim is a minor; since the victim is minor the act is an offence and 'the consent of a minor is of no worth'; bail application devoid of any merit and liable to dismissal — rejected as not a fit case for bail. Opposite-party notices served but no appearance.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125317

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20577 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Gaurav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Danish,Rajiv Sisodia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajiv Sisodia, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Virendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

Notice was issued to opposite party nos. 2 to 4 vide order dated 20.06.2025 and has been served on the first informant/opposite party no. 2 and other respondents as per office report dated 07.07.2025. Despite service of notice on the opposite parties, no one appears on their behalf.

¶8

This bail application has been filed by the applicant- Gaurav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 26 of 2025 under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) B.N.S. and 5(J)/6 POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Heempur Deepa, District Bijnor.

¶9

The FIR of the matter was lodged on 07.03.2025 by Smt. Rajo Devi against the applicant and Saurabh alleging therein that her daughter having date of birth as 20.07.2010 and is a minor has been lured and enticed away by Gaurav on 04.03.2025 at about 11:30 p.m. At that time Saurabh was also with him. A report be lodged and action be taken.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that victim was recovered on 21.03.2025 and her statement under Section 180 BNSS was recorded in which she states of going with the applicant out of her own sweet will and marrying him. She further states that then they lived together in Noida as husband and wife. It is submitted further that the statement of the victim under Section 183 BNSS was recorded who then states all the same as stated by her in her statement under Section 180 BNSS. It is submitted that

¶11

the victim is a consenting party and went with the applicant out of her own sweet will. Further, it is submitted that the Chief Medical Officer concerned opined the age of the victim as about above 18 years and below 21 years and thus she is a major girl. It is submitted that the applicant and the victim have decided to live together and the victim is having a pregnancy also. Paragraph-16 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court for the same. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. Paragraph-17 of the affidavit is placed for the same and applicant is in jail since 24.03.2025.

¶12

Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the victim is a minor girl aged about 15 years. It is submitted that as per the school records the date of birth of the victim is 20.07.2010 and thus she was aged about 14 years and 8 months at the time of the incident. It is submitted that the victim has delivered a child but the fact remains that at the time of incident she was a minor and since physical relationship was established by the applicant the same is an offence as she was a minor. It is submitted that as such bail application of the applicant be rejected.

¶13

After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and in the statements of the victim recorded during investigation; as per the school records the victim is a minor; allegations of physical relationship have been levelled against the applicant. Since the victim is minor, the same is an offence. The consent of a minor is of no worth. The bail application is devoid of any merit and is liable to dismissed.

¶14

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

¶15

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 29.7.2025 PS

¶17

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gaurav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases