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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Raju 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 issuing the release order, subject to conditions: (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.; deliberate or unexcused absence may be treated as abuse of liberty of bail and proceeded against in accordance with law; breach of any condition to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant is entitled to release on bail during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No. 222 of 2024 (P.S. Loni Border, District Ghaziabad) under Sections 376(2) N, 377 IPC and Sections 3,4,6,5(L), 5(M), 6, 16, 16/17, 21 POCSO Act, considering the 7-day delay in lodging of the FIR and the absence of medical corroboration of the incident.

Court's answer

The Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail; accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Ratio / Principle

Following the Supreme Court's approach in Niranjan Singh, the Court avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits; a prima facie satisfaction of the case suffices and is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

Key takeaways

Bail was granted taking into consideration the inordinate delay of 7 days in lodging of the FIR coupled with the fact that there is no medical corroboration of the incident, along with the submissions of counsel, the evidence on record, and the settled law of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (2022 INSC 690) and Manish Sisodia (2024 INSC 595), without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.ratio¶10
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¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5038 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Court No. 65; Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.; Order dated 4.3.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:30566) — Bail ALLOWED. Applicant Raju, stated in the prosecution story to be the step father of the victim who was sexually assaulted for 7 days before the FIR with the help of his maternal brother, sought bail in Case Crime No. 222 of 2024, P.S. Loni Border, District Ghaziabad, under Sections 376(2) N, 377 IPC and Sections 3,4,6,5(L), 5(M), 6, 16, 16/17, 21 POCSO Act, during pendency of trial. Following the Supreme Court's approach in Niranjan Singh and another v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others (AIR 1980 SC 785) — prima facie satisfaction, not exhaustive exploration of merits — and the settled law in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022 INSC 690) and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 INSC 595), and weighing the inordinate delay of 7 days in lodging the FIR coupled with the absence of medical corroboration, the Court allowed bail without expressing any opinion on the merits. Release ordered on personal bond with two sureties each in like amount (sureties to be verified before the release order), subject to: (i) no tampering with evidence; (ii) personal presence before the Trial Court at opening of case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S.; deliberate absence may be treated as abuse of liberty of bail; breach of conditions a ground for cancellation. Observations in the order not to affect the trial Judge's independent opinion. Per counsel: FIR delayed about 7 days without explanation; mother of the victim, a widow, was remarried to the applicant, displeasing her parents; maternal grandfather and grandmother (Nana and Nani) allegedly got the FIR instituted; allegations unsupported by medical evidence; applicant in jail since 11.4.2024, no criminal history, ready to cooperate with trial. Notice to informant served 31.01.2025.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30566

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5038 of 2025

Applicant :- Raju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rizwan Sayed,Ziya Uddin Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

List has been revised.

Heard Sri Ziya Uddin, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Varun Pratap Singh, 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 31.01.2025.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 222 of 2024, under Sections 376(2) N, 377 IPC ande 3,4,6,5(L), 5(M), 6, 16, 16/17, 21 POCSO Act, Police Station Loni Border, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to be the step father of the victim and had sexually assaulted her for 7 days before the institution of the FIR and his maternal brother (uncle of the victim) helped him in the said act.

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 7 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The mother of the victim was widow and she was remarried with the applicant, which was not liked by her parents. The maternal grand-father and maternal grand-mother (Nana and Nani) have got the said FIR instituted against the applicant. Learned counsel has further stated that the allegations in the FIR do not stand corroborated by any medical evidence whatsoever.

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 history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.4.2024 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 the case of Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others, AIR 1980 SC 785 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, taking into consideration the inordinate delay of 7 days in lodging of the FIR coupled with the fact that there is no medical corroboration of the incident, 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- Raju , 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 :- 4.3.2025 S.K.S.

Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad