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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail allowed. Applicant Sikandra 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, with sureties to be verified before issuance of the release order, subject to conditions: (i) he shall not tamper with evidence; (ii) he shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S., failing which deliberate absence may be treated as abuse of the liberty of bail; breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Sikandra, arraigned in Case Crime No. 256 of 2024 under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1), 115(2) B.N.S., Sections 5/6 POCSO Act and Sections 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act (P.S. Belaharkala, District Sant Kabir Nagar), is entitled to bail during the pendency of trial.

Court's answer

Following Niranjan Singh (AIR 1980 SC 785), the Court deliberately avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits; a prima facie satisfaction of the case was treated as sufficient, distinct from an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order.

Ratio / Principle

Taking into account the settled law in Satender Kumar Antil (2022 INSC 690) and Manish Sisodia (2024 INSC 595), and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and allowed the bail application.

Key takeaways

The applicant was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (non-tampering with evidence; personal presence at specified trial stages), with breach constituting ground for cancellation of bail.ratio¶14
It was made clear that the observations made in granting bail shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.obiter¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 65; Justice Krishan Pahal, Order dated 9.4.2025) allowed the Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4151 of 2025 filed by Sikandra in Case Crime No. 256 of 2024, Police Station Belaharkala, District Sant Kabir Nagar, instituted under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) and 115(2) B.N.S., Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, and Sections 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, during the pendency of trial. Counsel for the applicant urged innocence, an unexplained delay of about 15 days in the FIR, the victim's consent as evidenced by her travelling with the applicant without raising alarm, her apparent majority despite the stated age of 17, absence of criminal antecedents, and custody since 08.11.2024; the learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application. Invoking Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others (AIR 1980 SC 785), the Court declined to undertake detailed examination of evidence or elaborate documentation of merits, requiring only prima facie satisfaction; and drawing on Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI (2022 INSC 690) and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 INSC 595), it held, without expressing any opinion on merits, that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Release was ordered on a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount (sureties to be verified before release), on conditions of non-tampering with evidence and personal presence before the Trial Court at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S.; breach was declared a ground for cancellation of bail, and it was clarified that the observations would not affect the trial Judge's independent assessment of witness testimony.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51870

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4151 of 2025 Applicant :- Sikandra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Alauddin,Fakhruddin Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

List has been revised.

Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 06.02.2025.

Heard Sri Alauddin, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.K.S Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 256 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1), 115(2) B.N.S., Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Section 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station Belaharkala, District Sant Kabir Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about 15 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from the fact that she had traveled to several places with the applicant and has not raised any alarm whatsoever. The victim by her looks seems to be major although she is stated to be 17 years old.

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 08.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

Let the applicant- Sikandra , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

It is made clear that 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.

Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Priya

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad