Rahul Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

Rahul Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Rahul Yadav to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to conditions: (i) not to tamper with prosecution evidence; (ii) not to pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) to appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Rahul Yadav, prosecuted in Case Crime No. 455 of 2024 (Police Station Maharajganj, District Raebareli) under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) B.N.S. and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act for allegedly enticing away the informant's 15-year-old daughter, is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Court's answer

The statements of the victim prima facie indicate that she was in a consensual relationship with the applicant, a circumstance weighed by the court in favour of granting bail.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant has no previous criminal history, is languishing in jail since 27.11.2024, and the investigation already stands concluded; these facts were treated as relevant to bail.

Key takeaways

The aforesaid facts and circumstances are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail, without making any observation that may affect the merits of the case.ratio¶15
Bail is ordered subject to conditions: the applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence, shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses, and shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Subhash Vidyarthi J. - Bail ALLOWED (order dated 16.5.2025) in CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 2170 of 2025 concerning Case Crime No. 455 of 2024, Police Station Maharajganj, District Raebareli, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) B.N.S. and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The case arose from an FIR of 13.11.2024 alleging that the applicant and two others enticed away the informant's daughter, aged about 15 years, on 07.11.2024. The victim's statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS were taken to prima facie show a consensual relationship (one alleged instance of force offset by consent the following day); the medico-legal examination showed no injury or sign of force. The court noted absence of previous criminal history (six other cases disclosed, bail already obtained in four), continuous custody since 27.11.2024, and a concluded investigation with charge sheet dated 13.12.2024. Release ordered on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions barring tampering with evidence and pressure on witnesses and mandating attendance on trial dates.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29057

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2170 of 2025

Applicant :- Rahul Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pravin Singh,Shivam Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jaikaran

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

Heard Sri Pravin Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ravi Srivastava, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, Sri Jaikaran, the learned counsel for the informant and perused the records.

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 455 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) B.N.S. and Section 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Maharajganj, District Raebareli.

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 13.11.2024 against the applicant and two other persons stating that the accused persons had enticed away the informant's daughter aged about 15 years at about 8.00 p.m. on 07.11.2024.

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 BNSS she stated that she knows the applicant for the past nine months, she had gone with him to Delhi via Lucknow and stayed there as husband and wife. When the applicant started beating her without any reason, she came back.

The medico legal examination report of the victim mentions

no mark of injury or sign of use of force.

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS she reiterated her earlier version but in this statement she stated that the on one occasion the applicant had forcibly made physical relations with her but on the following day they made physical relations with mutual consent.

In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant's involvement in six other cases has been disclosed by filing a supplementary affidavit in four of which he has been granted bail, in one case the applicant is not involved and in the last case has not received any summon as yet.

The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of material collected during investigation and a copy of the charge sheet dated 13.12.2024.

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the statements of victim which prima facie indicates that she was in a consensual relationship with the applicant; that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 27.11.2024 and the investigation already stands concluded and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

Let the applicant-Rahul Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court

concerned, subject to following conditions:-

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Ram.

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench