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

Satendra 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 Satendra: release upon 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 (no tampering with evidence, no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses, appearance before trial court on fixed dates); breach constitutes ground for cancellation.

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Satendra, accused in Case Crime No. 493 of 2024 under Sections 137(2), 74, 65(1) BNS and Sections 7/8 & 4(2) POCSO Act (PS Debai, District Bulandshahr), is entitled to bail during the pendency of trial.

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and the settled law of the Supreme Court 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, the Court held that the applicant has made out a case for bail and allowed the bail application.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is to be released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to stated conditions; before issuing the release order the sureties are to be verified.

Key takeaways

Bail conditions imposed: (i) applicant will not tamper with evidence during trial; (ii) applicant will not pressurise/intimidate prosecution witnesses; (iii) applicant will appear before the trial court on dates fixed; breach of any condition shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.ratio¶18
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.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 65), Justice Krishan Pahal, order dated 18.4.2025: bail ALLOWED to applicant Satendra in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5019 of 2025 relating to Case Crime No. 493 of 2024, PS Debai, District Bulandshahr, under Sections 137(2), 74, 65(1) BNS and Sections 7/8 & 4(2) POCSO Act, pending trial. Prosecution story: alleged outrage of modesty of the informant's minor daughter (about 15 years) after enticing her away on 09.09.2024 at about 05:00 PM; victim returned the same day. Applicant's counsel argued innocence, ~12-day FIR delay without explanation, escalation of allegations to rape at the statement-recording stage u/s 180 & 183 BNSS after legal consultations, apparent majority of the victim, absence of medical corroboration, no criminal history, and detention since 22.09.2024. State Law Officer and informant's counsel opposed but did not dispute the submissions, conceding no criminal history. Taking into account the settled Supreme Court 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 merits, the Court found a case for bail: release on personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount (sureties verified before release order), subject to conditions of no tampering with evidence, no intimidation of witnesses, and appearance on trial dates; breach is ground for cancellation; observations expressly not to affect the trial Judge's independent opinion.