Suraj Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

Suraj Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application allowed; applicant Suraj Verma to be released on bail in FIR No.100 of 2025 on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions: (a) execute bond undertaking to attend hearings; (b) not commit any offence similar to that of which accused or suspected; (c) not directly or indirectly induce, threaten or promise any person acquainted with the facts so as to dissuade disclosure or tamper with evidence.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in FIR No.100 of 2025 (Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) BNS; Section 3/4 POCSO Act; Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act), given the huge variance between the victim's Section 180 BNSS and Section 183 BNSS statements, her tentative age of 16 years, his custody since 02.05.2025 and absence of criminal antecedents.

Court's answer

The applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail, considering the huge variance in the two statements, the tentative age of the victim (16 years), his being in custody since 02.05.2025 and his having no criminal antecedent.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 12 — Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5520 of 2025 (decision dated October 17, 2025, Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.). Applicant Suraj Verma, represented by counsel Dhirendra Pratap Singh, sought bail in FIR No.100 of 2025, P.S. Mohanganj, District Amethi, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) BNS, Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act. FIR alleged the informant's missing daughter was enticed by the applicant; the victim's statement under Section 180 BNSS did not name him (she said she left home alone), whereas her later statement under Section 183 BNSS alleged she left with him on a motorcycle and alleged wrongdoing; she refused medical examination. Weighing the huge variance between the two statements, the victim's tentative age of 16 years, the applicant's custody since 02.05.2025 and absence of criminal antecedents (learned AGA opposed), Judge held the applicant entitled to be enlarged on bail and allowed the application: release on a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, with undertakings to attend hearings, refrain from similar offences, and abstain from inducement/threat/promise or tampering with evidence.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5520 of 2025

Suraj Verma

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And 3 Others

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dhirendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 12

HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.100 of 2025, under Section 137(2), 87, 65(1) BNS, Section 3/4 of POCSO Act & Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Mohanganj, District Amethi.

3. In terms of the FIR it was alleged that daughter of the informant was missing and was allegedly enticed by the applicant. Subsequently, in the statement under Section 180 BNSS, the victim stated that she had gone out of her home alone; the applicant was not named in the said statement. Subsequently, however, in the statement under Section 183 BNSS, the victim stated that she had gone alongwith the applicant on a motorcycle; allegation of wrong was also made. The victim has refused to undergo medical examination.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

5. Considering the huge variance in the two statements and the tentative age of the victim to be 16 years, the applicant who is in custody since 02.05.2025 and has no criminal antecedent, is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed .

6. Let the applicant Suraj Verma be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/-

BAIL No. 5520 of 2025

2

each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

October 17, 2025

nishant

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench