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

Vipin 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 Vipin in Case Crime No. 474 of 2024 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount (sureties to be verified before release), subject to conditions: no tampering with evidence; personal presence before the Trial Court at opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S.; breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Vipin, implicated in Case Crime No. 474 of 2024 under Sections 137(2), 65(1) B.N.S. and 4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Trans Yamuna, District Agra, is entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of trial. +1 more

Court's answer

Guided by Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote (AIR 1980 SC 785), this Court avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case, requiring only prima facie satisfaction, which is not the same as exhaustive exploration of the merits in the bail order itself.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the facts and circumstances, the submissions of counsel, the evidence on record and the settled law of the Supreme Court (Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2022 INSC 690; Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, 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

Applicant Vipin 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, 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., deliberate absence being open to be treated as abuse of the liberty of bail; breach of any condition shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.ratio¶¶15
It was clarified that the 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

Bail allowed — POCSO/B.N.S. case — Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4432 of 2025, order dated 19.3.2025: applicant Vipin, in custody since 17.11.2024 and with no criminal antecedent stated, seeks bail in Case Crime No. 474 of 2024 under Sections 137(2), 65(1) B.N.S. and 4(2) POCSO Act, P.S. Trans Yamuna, District Agra, during pendency of trial. Counsel urged innocence and false implication, an unexplained delay of about one day in the FIR, apparent consent of the victim (who allegedly went with the applicant on a motorcycle to a hotel), absence of medical corroboration, and that the victim appears major by looks though the ossification test reports her age as 17 years. Invoking Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, AIR 1980 SC 785, the Court avoided detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of merits, requiring only prima facie satisfaction; it also adverted to Jaya Mala v. State of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Mohd. Imran Khan v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192 (radiologist cannot predict the correct date of birth; margin of 1 to 2 years on either side). Relying on the settled law in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, bail was allowed: release on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount (to be verified), subject to conditions of non-tampering with evidence and personal presence before the Trial Court at opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S., deliberate absence to be actionable as abuse of the liberty of bail; breach of conditions to be ground for cancellation. Observations in the order not to affect the trial Judge's independent opinion.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39339

Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4432 of 2025 Applicant :- Vipin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Somdev Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

List has been revised.

Learned State Law Officer has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 10.2.2025.

Heard Sri Somdev Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.474 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 65(1) B.N.S. and 4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station- Trans Yamuna, District- Agra, 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 seems to be a consenting party as she had gone with the applicant on a motorcycle to a hotel. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The victim by her looks seems to be major, although as per the ossification test report her age has come out to be 17 years.

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 17.11.2024 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.

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.

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- Vipin , 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 :- 19.3.2025/ Vikas

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad