Tejpratap Alias Teju Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

Allowed¶14

Tejpratap Alias Teju v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Oct 2025BAIL/21096/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court bail order dated October 9, 2025 by Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21096 of 2025; Tejpratap Alias Teju v. State of U.P. & 3 others; Criminal Case No. 266/2023, P.S. Muskara, District Hamirpur; Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC; Section 5/6 POCSO Act; regular bail granted after interim bail of 26.06.2025 conditioned on online marriage registration and affidavit; marriage registration failed as alleged victim's parents withheld consent and did not appear before registrar; counsel claimed alleged victim is consenting adult with a child born of the relationship and supports bail; AGA opposed citing grave and cognizable offence; release on personal bond and two local sureties with standard bail conditions; no comment on merits; trial court free to cancel bail on breach; applicant in custody since 22.03.2025; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted: applicant to be released upon furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned court, subject to five conditions — (i) no tampering with prosecution evidence during investigation or trial; (ii) no threatening/intimidating of prosecution witnesses, victim or complainant; (iii) compliance with court orders, appearance on scheduled dates without unnecessary delay and honest cooperation in trial; (iv) no misuse of the liberty of bail and no involvement in any criminal activity or act; (v) no inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to any person acquainted with the facts or police officials to dissuade them from disclosing facts to the court. In case of breach of any condition, the trial court remains free to cancel the bail in accordance with law.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail granted: applicant to be released upon furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned court, subject to five conditions — (i) no tampering with prosecution evidence during investigation or trial; (ii) no threatening/intimidating of prosecution witnesses, victim or complainant; (iii) compliance with court orders, appearance on scheduled dates without unnecessary delay and honest cooperation in trial; (iv) no misuse of the liberty of bail and no involvement in any criminal activity or act; (v) no inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to any person acquainted with the facts or police officials to dissuade them from disclosing facts to the court. In case of breach of any condition, the trial court remains free to cancel the bail in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail in Criminal Case No. 266/2023 (Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC; Section 5/6 POCSO Act), Police Station Muskara, District Hamirpur.

Court's answer

Having heard both sides and taken a holistic view of the submissions and material on record, and considering the nature of the evidence, the absence of any concrete opposing material and the lack of likelihood of tampering with the available material, the Judge was of the view that there are adequate grounds to release the applicant on bail.

Ratio / Principle

Without making any comment on the merits of the case, the applicant was ordered released on bail in the aforesaid offences, subject to furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned court, along with the enumerated conditions.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.), October 9, 2025 — Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21096 of 2025 (Tejpratap Alias Teju v. State of U.P. & 3 Others): Regular bail allowed without any comment on the merits in Criminal Case No. 266/2023, P.S. Muskara, District Hamirpur (Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act). The applicant had earlier been released on interim bail by order dated 26.06.2025 subject to getting his marriage registered online on a fixed date and submitting an affidavit; registration failed because the alleged victim's parents did not consent to the marriage and did not appear before the marriage registrar's office. Counsel for the applicant contended that the alleged victim/wife is a consenting adult party to the relationship, a child has been born of the union, and she has sworn the present affidavit supporting the bail plea; the Additional Government Advocate opposed bail citing the cognizable and grave nature of the offence. Finding no concrete opposing material and no likelihood of tampering with the available material, the Court held there were adequate grounds for bail and ordered release on a personal bond and two local sureties with standard protective conditions (no tampering with evidence, no intimidation of witnesses/victim/complainant, attendance and honest cooperation at trial, no misuse of liberty or criminal activity, no inducement/threat to persons acquainted with the facts), reserving to the trial court the power to cancel bail on breach of any condition. The applicant had been in jail since 22.03.2025.