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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted to applicant Karan in Case Crime No. 404 of 2024 (Sections 137(2), 64(1), 74 B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahar) during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions of non-tampering with evidence and in-person presence before the Trial Court at opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S.; sureties to be verified before the release order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Karan, booked in Case Crime No. 404 of 2024 under Sections 137(2), 64(1), 74 B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act (Police Station Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahar), should be released on bail during the pendency of trial.

Court's answer

In light of the Supreme Court judgement in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others (AIR 1980 SC 785), the Court avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case, holding that a prima facie satisfaction of the case is needed but is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of the parties, the evidence on record, and the settled law of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022 INSC 690) and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 INSC 595), 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.

Key takeaways

The applicant Karan was directed 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 the sureties to be verified before issuance of the release order.ratio¶¶16
Release was made subject to conditions: (i) the applicant shall not tamper with evidence; (ii) he 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., failing which deliberate absence may be treated as abuse of the liberty of bail and proceeded against in accordance with law; and breach of any condition shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.ratio¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 65), single bench of Justice Krishan Pahal; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5660 of 2025; Order Date 23.4.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:61593. Applicant Karan, involved in Case Crime No. 404 of 2024 under Sections 137(2), 64(1), 74 B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahar, sought bail during the pendency of trial. The ossification test report placed the victim's age at 17-18 years; notice to the informant was served on 18.1.2025; the applicant was in jail since 21.10.2024 with counsel submitting he had no criminal antecedents. Counsel for the applicant argued the FIR was delayed by about five days without explanation and that the victim was a consenting party as evident from her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., wherein she stated she had gone with the applicant from Khurja to Noida without raising any alarm; learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application. Acting in light of Niranjan Singh and another v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others (AIR 1980 SC 785), the Court avoided detailed examination of the evidence, requiring only prima facie satisfaction rather than exhaustive exploration of merits; taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022 INSC 690) and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 INSC 595), and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held the applicant had made out a case for bail and allowed the application. Release was ordered on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, with surety verification before the release order, subject to conditions: non-tampering with evidence, and in-person presence 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 may be treated as abuse of the liberty of bail; breach of conditions is a ground for cancellation; and the observations in the bail order shall not affect the trial judge's independent opinion formed on the testimony of witnesses.