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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail application allowed; applicant Deepak Sharma 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 (no tampering with evidence; no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; appearance before trial court on dates fixed), with surety verification before release order and breach of conditions constituting ground for cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Deepak Sharma is entitled to bail in Case Crime No. 13 of 2025 under Sections 137(2), 64, 87 of BNS and Section 5M/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kubersthan, District Kushinagar, during the pendency of trial. +1 more

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the delay in institution of the FIR coupled with the fact that the victim is a consenting party, the Court held that the applicant has made out a case for bail and allowed the bail application.

Ratio / Principle

A leverage of two years can be granted to the applicant on the upper side with respect to the age of the victim, in light of Jaya Mala Vs. State of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192, whereby it has been opined that the radiologist cannot predict the correct date of birth and there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side.

Key takeaways

The applicant Deepak Sharma 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 the evidence, shall not pressurise/intimidate the prosecution witnesses, and shall appear before the trial court on dates fixed; sureties to be verified before release order, and breach of any condition to be a ground for cancellation of bail.ratio¶¶15
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.obiter¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (Court No. 65) — Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:142741 | CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 28536 of 2025 | Justice Krishan Pahal | Order Date 20.8.2025. Bail ALLOWED for applicant Deepak Sharma in Case Crime No. 13 of 2025 under Sections 137(2), 64, 87 of BNS and Section 5M/6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Kubersthan, District Kushinagar, during pendency of trial. Counsel argued innocence and false implication, seven-day unexplained delay in FIR, victim major by physical appearance though ossification test shows 17 years, consent evident from her statement under section 183 BNSS, absence of medical corroboration, and no criminal history (custody since 20.02.2025); State opposed through learned State Law Officer. Court held that a leverage of two years can be granted on the upper side of the ossification-determined age, relying on Jaya Mala Vs. State of J & K (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2011) 10 SCC 192 (radiologist cannot predict correct date of birth; margin of one to two years on either side). Considering the delay in the FIR and the victim being a consenting party, the applicant was held to have made out a case for bail; release directed on personal bond with two sureties each in like amount, subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence, no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses, appearance on dates fixed); breach a ground for cancellation; observations expressly not to affect the trial Judge's independent opinion on witness testimony.