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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted to applicant Sauraj in Case Crime No. 180 of 2024 (Sections 363, 376 I.P.C.; Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Madhuban Bapudham, District Ghaziabad) on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence, shall not pressurise/intimidate prosecution witnesses, and shall appear before the trial court on dates fixed; sureties to be verified before the release order; breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant (Sauraj), accused in Case Crime No. 180 of 2024 under Sections 363, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Madhuban Bapudham, District Ghaziabad, should be released on bail during the pendency of trial.

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, submissions of counsel, the evidence on record, the delay in institution of the FIR and the fact that the victim seems to be a consenting party, 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.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant was directed 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 the trial court on dates fixed), with sureties to be verified before issuance of the release order; breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Key takeaways

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¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — Allahabad High Court (Krishan Pahal, J.), by order dated 15.5.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4408 of 2025, allowed the bail application of Sauraj, accused in Case Crime No. 180 of 2024 under Sections 363, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Madhuban Bapudham, District Ghaziabad. Taking into account the delay in institution of the FIR (argued to be about one day) and the fact that the victim seems to be a consenting party (as evident, per counsel, from her statements under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S.), and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail. On the victim's age (ossification test report indicating 17 years, with a plea for a two-year leverage), the Court relied 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 for the position that a radiologist cannot predict the correct date of birth and there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side. The applicant, in custody since 22.06.2024 with no criminal history, was to be released on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and pressurising witnesses and requiring attendance at trial; breach was made a ground for cancellation. The Court clarified that its observations would not affect the trial judge's independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80634

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4408 of 2025

Applicant :- Sauraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

List has been revised.

Compliance affidavit filed today is taken on record.

Heard Sri Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 20.01.2025.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.180 of 2024, under Sections 363, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Madhuban Bapudham, District Ghaziabad, 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 one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S.

Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the victim by her looks seems to be major. As per ossification test report, she is 17 years old and a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.06.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

The Supreme Court in 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 has opined that the radiologist cannot predict the correct date of birth rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of the FIR and the fact that the victim seems to be a consenting party, 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- Sauraj , 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 during trial.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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 :- 15.5.2025 (Ravi Kant)

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad