Dismissed¶15

Rahul Kannaujia v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Jun 2025BAIL/20583/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 20583 of 2025; Samit Gopal, J.; order dated 14.7.2025; bail application rejected/dismissed; applicant Rahul Kannaujia; Case Crime No.96 of 2025; Sections 137(2), 87, 64 B.N.S.; Section 3/4 POCSO Act; Section 483 BNSS; P.S. Raunapar, District Azamgarh; FIR 18.3.2025 by Pradumna Kannaujia; enticement/kidnapping of minor girl 'A'; school-record age 16 years 7 months; consent of minor of no worth; applicant in jail since 7.4.2025; no criminal history.

What did the court decide?

The victim 'A' was aged about 16 years as per the FIR and about 16 years and 7 months per her school records at the time of the incident, and therefore is a minor. ¶14

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant-Rahul Kannaujia, arraigned in Case Crime No.96 of 2025 (Sections 137(2), 87, 64 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act) for enticing away the informant's sister 'A', should be enlarged on bail during trial. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court did not find it a fit case for bail and rejected the bail application.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The victim 'A' was aged about 16 years as per the FIR and about 16 years and 7 months per her school records at the time of the incident, and therefore is a minor.

¶14

Key takeaways

The consent of a minor is of no worth, so the applicant's claim that the victim went with him of her own sweet-will cannot assist his bail plea.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail rejected — Allahabad High Court (Court No.64), Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.20583 of 2025, order dated 14.7.2025 (Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.). Rahul Kannaujia filed a bail application under Section 483 of BNSS seeking enlargement on bail during trial in Case Crime No.96 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Raunapar, District Azamgarh. FIR lodged 18.3.2025 by Pradumna Kannaujia against the applicant and co-accused Golu alleging that on 16.3.2025 they lured and enticed away his sister 'A' (aged about 16) and sister 'B' (aged about 17). Applicant's counsel urged that the victim stated during investigation that she went with the applicant out of her own sweet-will, solemnised marriage and that physical relationship was consensual; applicant had no criminal history (para 24 of affidavit) and was in jail since 7.4.2025. State opposed, contending the victim was a minor whose consent cannot be looked into. The court held the victim was aged about 16 years 7 months per school records, hence a minor, and the consent of a minor is of no worth; it did not find the case fit for bail and rejected the application. Opposite party no.2, though personally served, did not appear.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:112361

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20583 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul Kannaujia Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Indra Deo Yadav,Yashpal Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Indra Deo Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

Notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 vide order dated 20.6.2025. As per office report dated 10.7.2025, notice has been served upon the opposite party no.2 personally but no one appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 even when the matter is taken up in the revised list despite service of notice.

¶9

This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant-Rahul Kannaujia, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.96 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Raunapar, District Azamgarh.

¶10

The FIR of the matter was lodged on 18.3.2025 by Pradumna Kannaujia against the applicant and Golu alleging therein that on 16.3.2025, his sister 'A' aged about 16 years and another sister 'B' aged about 17 years have been lured and enticed away by both the accused persons. A report be lodged and action be taken.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that in so far as the applicant is concerned, there is allegation of enticing away the victim 'A' by the applicant. The same is false and incorrect inasmuch as the victim during investigation has stated that she went with the applicant out of her own sweet-will and solemnized marriage and physical relationship was established between them with her consent. It is further argued that the statement of the victim is a gospel truth which has to be accepted in toto. Looking to the same, the implication of the applicant in the present case is false. It has also been pointed out that the applicant

¶12

is not having any criminal history as stated in para 24 of the affidavit and is in jail since 7.4.2025.

¶13

Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the victim as per her school records is aged about 16 years and 7 months, as such is a minor. Even in the FIR, the age of the victim is 16 years and thus is minor. It is argued that the consent of a minor cannot be looked into. It is further argued that victim 'A' has stated of the applicant taking her away and keeping her in a room and there was physical relationship. Thus the same is an offence. The bail application of the applicant be thus rejected.

¶14

After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that allegation against the applicant is of enticing away one of the sisters of the informant 'A' who as per FIR is aged about 16 years. The said victim as per school records is aged about 16 years and 7 months at the time of incident. She thus is a minor. The consent of a minor is of no worth.

¶15

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 .

¶16

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Gaurav Kuls

¶18

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Kannaujia v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kannaujia 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

Ajay vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mukesh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sahil Alias Sohail Khan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shiva Kant Alias Shiva vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gaurav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abu Jaifa Alias Zaif Khan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others