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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the applicant; bail application rejected. The Court additionally directed that the pending case before the trial court be decided expeditiously, if there is no legal impediment, in view of the principles laid down in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702.

Issue for consideration

Whether Shivbabu, the applicant, accused in Case Crime No. 224 of 2024, Police Station Bilhaur, District Kanpur Nagar, registered under ss. 137(2) and 65(2) B.N.S. and s. 5m/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, should be released on bail during the pendency of trial.

Court's answer

Taking into account the facts and circumstances, submissions, evidence on record, the victim's age recorded by the Court as 7 years, the narration in her s. 183 B.N.S.S. statement, her recovery along with the applicant on 8.8.2024 at about 3.30 am and the proximity between the institution of the FIR and that recovery, and expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court was not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

Key takeaways

Clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of the bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.obiter¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Application Rejected — Minor-Victim POCSO/BNS Case (Kanpur Nagar): The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Court No. 65, Justice Krishan Pahal; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:58288; Order dated 21.4.2025) dismissed Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5072 of 2025 of Shivbabu, an accused in Case Crime No. 224 of 2024, Police Station Bilhaur, District Kanpur Nagar, registered U/S 137(2), 65(2) B.N.S. and 5m/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, arising from an FIR of 7.8.2024 instituted by the informant against an unknown person regarding his daughter missing since about 7.00 pm. The applicant pleaded innocence and false implication, contended that the victim's statement recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S. contradicted her purported recovery along with him on 8.8.2024 at 3.30 am, urged an approximately four-hour unexplained delay in the FIR, an ossification-test age of 10 years, and absence of medical corroboration (internal examination refused; no apparent injury observed), noting custody since 8.8.2024 with no criminal history; the State opposed bail on the ground of the victim's tender age. Considering, inter alia, the victim's age recorded by the Court as 7 years, the narration in her s. 183 B.N.S.S. statement, the recovery along with the applicant the very next morning (8.8.2024, about 3.30 am) and the proximity between the institution of the FIR and that recovery, and expressly without opining on merits, the Court refused bail. Its observations were expressly confined to the bail-disposal stage and declared to have no bearing on the merits during trial. The trial court was directed to decide the pending case expeditiously, absent legal impediment, in view of the Supreme Court principles in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab, 2015 (3) SCC 220, and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:58288

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5072 of 2025

Applicant :- Shivbabu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice has been served to the informant on 1.3.2025.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri R.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.224 of 2024, U/S 137(2), 65(2) B.N.S. and 5m/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Bilhaur, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

The FIR was instituted by the informant against unknown person regarding his missing daughter since 7.8.2024 at 7.00 pm. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. It is stated that he has nothing to do with the said offence.

It is a clear-cut case of false implication, as the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S. is contradictory to her recovery. In her statement, she has stated that she was rendered nude by the applicant, whereafter she ran to her maternal grand-mother (Nani), while the recovery of the victim purported to have been made with the applicant indicates that both of them were recovered on 8.8.2024 at 3.30 am, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail.

The FIR is delayed by about four hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

As per ossification test report, the victim is 10 years old.

There is no medical corroboration of the incident, as the internal examination has been refused and no apparent injury was observed by the doctor conducting her medical examination.

The applicant is languishing in jail since 8.8.2024 having no criminal history and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the victim is of tender age, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

CONCLUSION:

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the age of the victim, being 7 years only, the fact as narrated in her statement recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S., coupled by the fact that the victim was recovered alongwith the applicant on the very next morning i.e. 8.8.2024 at about 3.30 am, and taking into consideration the proximity between the institution of the FIR and her recovery with the applicant, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

The bail application is, accordingly, rejected .

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Shalini

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad