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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Aarif to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the magistrate/court concerned, subject to conditions: (i) shall not tamper with prosecution evidence; (ii) shall not pressurize prosecution witnesses; (iii) shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless exempted by the learned trial court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant (Aarif), accused in Case Crime No. 668 of 2024 (Sections 70(2), 352 B.N.S. 2023; Section 5G/6 POCSO Act; Section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act), Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda, is entitled to be released on bail.

Court's answer

Considering the medico-legal findings, the applicant being a 25-year-old with no criminal history, his being in jail since 08.09.2024 with the investigation concluded, and without making any observation affecting the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the aforesaid crime.

Ratio / Principle

The medico-legal examination of the victim was conducted within 24 hours of the incident and its findings do not support the commission of rape.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail allowed: Aarif (aged 25 years, no criminal history), in jail since 08.09.2024 in Case Crime No. 668 of 2024 (Sections 70(2) & 352, B.N.S. 2023; Section 5G/6, POCSO Act; Section 3(2)(v), S.C./S.T. Act), Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda, granted bail by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J. (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench) on 02.05.2025 (neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:25568). The F.I.R. of 08.09.2024 alleged that the two accused took the informant's daughter in their car under allurement of a mobile phone and raped her therein; the Section 180, B.N.S.S. statement placed the applicant in the car and attributed the rape sequentially to the co-accused and then the applicant, while the Section 183, B.N.S.S. statement stated that both accused raped her. Medico-legal examination conducted within 24 hours of the incident reported no mark of injury or sign of use of force, and no spermatozoa was seen in the vaginal smear slide. Investigation stood concluded with a chargesheet dated 29.10.2024. The co-accused had been granted bail on 06.03.2025 by a Coordinate Bench in Criminal Revision No. 89 of 2025 (reported as having been treated as a 'juvenile'); the learned A.G.A., while unable to dispute that the allegations against both accused were the same, opposed bail on the ground that the juvenile benefit was unavailable to the applicant. The applicant disclosed another criminal case in which he had been granted bail. Released on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions of non-tampering with prosecution evidence, non-pressure on prosecution witnesses, and appearance on every date fixed by the trial court.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
F.I.R. lodged on 08.09.2024 at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda, against two persons including the applicant (Case Crime No. 668 of 2024, under Sections 70(2), 352 B.N.S. 2023; Section 5G/6, POCSO Act; Section 3(2)(v), S.C./S.T. Act).¶8
Prior proceeding
F.I.R. alleged that the accused persons took the informant's daughter in their car under allurement of getting a mobile for her and both of them raped her in the car.¶8
Prior proceeding
Victim's statement under Section 180, B.N.S.S.: while alone at home she was taken for a drive by the co-accused on allurement of a mobile phone; the applicant was already sitting in the car; after some distance the applicant got down and the co-accused raped her; afterwards the co-accused got down and the applicant raped her.¶9
Prior proceeding
Medico-legal examination report of the victim reported no mark of injury or sign of use of force.¶10
Prior proceeding
Pathological examination report: no dead or living spermatozoa seen in the vaginal smear slide.¶11
Prior proceeding
Statement of the victim recorded under Section 183, B.N.S.S. stating that both the accused persons raped her (sentence completed as 'her.' in the following printed line).¶12
Prior proceeding
Affidavit in support of the bail-application states the applicant is a youngman aged 25 years with no criminal history, falsely implicated.¶14
Prior proceeding
State filed counter-affidavit annexing material collected during investigation and a copy of the chargesheet submitted on 29.10.2024.¶15
Prior proceeding
The other accused person was granted bail by order dated 06.03.2025 of a Coordinate Bench in Criminal Revision No. 89 of 2025.¶16
Prior proceeding
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant disclosing his involvement in another criminal case, in which he has been granted bail.¶17
Prior proceeding
Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail-application, submitting that the co-accused was granted bail treating him to be 'juvenile', a benefit not available to the applicant.¶18
Prior proceeding
Learned A.G.A. could not dispute that the allegations levelled against both the accused persons are the same.¶18