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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Sonu 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 issuing the release order; conditions: (i) applicant shall not tamper with evidence; (ii) 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., deliberate absence being treated as abuse of liberty of bail; breach of any condition to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Sonu, involved in Case Crime No. 300 of 2024 under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506, 376(2)(N) IPC, Section 5/6 POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(Va), 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act, Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar, should be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, submissions of counsel, evidence on record and the settled law of the Supreme Court (Satender Kumar Antil, 2022 INSC 690; Manish Sisodia, 2024 INSC 595), and without expressing any opinion on merits, the applicant has made out a case for bail; the bail application is allowed and the applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions.

Ratio / Principle

In light of Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote (AIR 1980 SC 785), this Court avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case; 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.

Key takeaways

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.obiter¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.; order dated 18.3.2025) allowed the bail application of Sonu, applicant in CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 6184 of 2025, seeking bail in Case Crime No. 300 of 2024, Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar, under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506, 376(2)(N) IPC, Section 5/6 POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(Va), 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act, during the pendency of trial. Counsel argued the applicant was innocent and falsely implicated; the relationship was consensual; the parties had married, the victim was living in the applicant's house and had given birth to a baby; the informant (father of the victim) had no objection to bail. The applicant had no criminal history and was in jail since 24.09.2024; the informant was not traceable and notice could not be served; the learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application. Following Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, AIR 1980 SC 785, the Court avoided detailed examination of evidence, requiring only prima facie satisfaction, and relying on Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595, held the applicant had made out a case for bail. Release ordered on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions of non-tampering with evidence and personal presence before the Trial Court at opening of the case, framing of charge and Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement; observations in the order were expressly not to affect the trial Judge's independent opinion.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:38338

Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6184 of 2025 Applicant :- Sonu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

List has been revised.

Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material placed on record.

Learned A.G.A. has stated that the informant is not traceable in the instant case, as such notice could not be served.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 300 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506, 376(2)(N) of IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(Va), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar, 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. He has nothing to do with the said offence. It is next stated that the deponent herein is the husband of the informant who happens to be the father of the victim and he has no objection, if the applicant is enlarged on bail as it is a matter of consensual relationship. It is further stated that the parties have married with each other and the victim is living in the house of the applicant only. The victim has also given birth to a baby.

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 24.09.2024 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.

In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court 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- Sonu , 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. 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 :- 18.3.2025 Sumit S

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad