Lavkush vs State of U.P. Thr. Its Secretary… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

Lavkush vs State of U.P. Thr. Its Secretary… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Lavkush ordered 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, with sureties to be verified before 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 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 capable of treatment as abuse of liberty of bail; breach of any condition to be a ground for cancellation of bail. Observations made in granting bail shall not affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of witnesses.

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Lavkush, involved in Case Crime No. 49 of 2024 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Rura, District Kanpur Dehat, should be granted bail during the pendency of trial.

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the submissions of counsel, the evidence on record, and the settled law of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil and Manish Sisodia, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court held that the applicant has made out a case for bail and allowed the bail application.

Ratio / Principle

Adopting the standard of Niranjan Singh, the Court proceeded on the basis that a bail decision requires only a prima facie satisfaction of the case; detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits is to be avoided so that no party is left with the impression that his case has been prejudiced.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Granted — Case Crime No. 49 of 2024, Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, P.S. Rura, District Kanpur Dehat — High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Krishan Pahal, J.), Order dated 4.3.2025 — Bail application of Lavkush ALLOWED without expressing any opinion on the merits, taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595; Court noted, per Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, AIR 1980 SC 785, that only a prima facie satisfaction is needed and detailed examination of evidence/elaborate documentation of merits is to be avoided — applicant in custody since 27.10.2024, no criminal history stated, counsel contended victim a consenting party per statement under Section 183 Cr.P.C. — released on personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions including 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.; breach to be ground for cancellation of bail.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30647

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5130 of 2025

Applicant :- Lavkush Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thr. Its Secretary Home Government Of U.P. At Lkw And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

List has been revised.

Heard Sri Shailesh Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, 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 11.02.2025.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.49 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Rura, District Kanpur Dehat, 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 victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under Section 183 Cr.P.C. She by her looks seems to be major, although she has stated her age to be 17 years. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. 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 27.10.2024 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, 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- Lavkush , 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 (Ravi Kant)

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

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