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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Ankit Gautam to be released on bail in Case Crime No.140 of 2024 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (non-tampering with evidence; personal appearance at specified trial stages), with sureties to be verified before the release order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Ankit Gautam, is entitled to release on bail in Case Crime No.140 of 2024 (Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Sigramau, District Jaunpur) during the pendency of trial.

Court's answer

After considering the facts, submissions of counsel, evidence on record and the settled law of the Supreme Court, the Court found that the applicant had made out a case for bail and allowed the bail application without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Ratio / Principle

In keeping with the Supreme Court's approach in Niranjan Singh (AIR 1980 SC 785), the Court confined itself to a prima facie satisfaction rather than an exhaustive exploration of the merits while deciding bail.

Key takeaways

The applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, with the sureties to be verified before issuance of the release order.ratio¶15
Condition imposed: the applicant shall not tamper with evidence.ratio¶16
Condition imposed: the applicant shall remain personally present before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of the Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. statement; deliberate absence may be treated by the Trial Court as abuse of bail liberty and proceeded against in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted - Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7308 of 2025 (neutral citation 2025:AHC:29095), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Justice Krishan Pahal, order dated 3.3.2025. Ankit Gautam, applicant in Case Crime No.140 of 2024, Police Station Sigramau, District Jaunpur, charged under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) B.N.S., 2023 read with Section 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, and in custody since 16.12.2024, was held entitled to bail during the pendency of trial. Relying on Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, AIR 1980 SC 785 (prima facie satisfaction, not exhaustive merits-examination, at the bail stage) and taking into consideration the settled law in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595, the Court allowed the application without expressing any opinion on the merits. Release ordered on a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount (sureties to be verified beforehand), subject to: (i) non-tampering with evidence; (ii) compulsory personal appearance at opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of the Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. statement, deliberate absence being liable to be treated as abuse of bail liberty; breach of conditions being a ground for cancellation of bail. Observations in the bail order were expressly stated not to affect the trial Judge's independent assessment of witness testimony.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29095

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7308 of 2025

Applicant :- Ankit Gautam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kant Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

List has been revised.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, 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 24.02.2025.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.140 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Sigramau, District Jaunpur, 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 evident from her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. She by her looks seems to be major, although as per ossification test report, her age has come out to be 17 years. 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 16.12.2024 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- Ankit Gautam , 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 :- 3.3.2025 (Ravi Kant)

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

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