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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release of the applicant Rajkumar on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to pre-release verification of sureties and conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence and shall remain personally present before the Trial Court on dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; deliberate absence may be treated as abuse of bail liberty; breach of conditions to be ground for cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Rajkumar, facing prosecution in Case Crime No. 427 of 2024 (P.S. Shahi, District Bareilly) under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(M), 65(1) of BNS, Section 5(L)/6, 3/4(2) of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, should be released on bail during the pendency of trial. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, the submissions of counsel, the evidence on record, and the settled law of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (2022 INSC 690) and Manish Sisodia (2024 INSC 595), and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court concluded that the applicant has made out a case for bail and allowed the bail application.

Ratio / Principle

In light of the Supreme Court judgment in Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote (AIR 1980 SC 785), this Court avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits, requiring prima facie satisfaction of the case rather than an exhaustive exploration of merits in the order itself.

Key takeaways

The applicant Rajkumar is 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 verified before issuance of the release order, subject to conditions including 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 the Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement; breach of conditions shall be ground for cancellation of bail.ratio¶16
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¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Justice Krishan Pahal), by order dated 17.3.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7729 of 2025 (neutral citation 2025:AHC:37509), allowed bail to applicant Rajkumar in Case Crime No. 427 of 2024, P.S. Shahi, District Bareilly, booked under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(M), 65(1) of BNS, Section 5(L)/6, 3/4(2) of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act. Applicant, in custody since 24.12.2024 with no criminal history, was defended on pleas of false implication, victim's consent per her Section 183 BNSS statement, apparent majority and absence of medical corroboration. Guided by Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote (AIR 1980 SC 785), the Court confined itself to prima facie satisfaction, avoiding detailed examination of evidence; drawing on the settled law in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022 INSC 690) and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 INSC 595), it allowed bail without expressing any opinion on merits, on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, conditioned on non-tampering with evidence and personal attendance at opening of case, framing of charge and recording of the Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement, breach being ground for cancellation; observations were expressly barred from influencing the trial Judge's independent opinion. Notice to the informant (served 06.03.2025) drew no response.