Awadhesh Kumar Kurmi vs State of U.P. and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

Awadhesh Kumar Kurmi vs State of U.P. and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail application allowed; applicant Awadhesh Kumar Kurmi 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 surety verification before release, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence, pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses, and requiring appearance before the trial court on fixed dates; breach to be ground for cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in Case Crime No. 489 of 2024 under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Cantt., District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court held that the applicant has made out a case for bail and allowed the bail application, taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court (Satender Kumar Antil; Manish Sisodia) and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Ratio / Principle

Release ordered 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 the release order, subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence; no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; appearance before the trial court on dates fixed); breach of any condition shall be ground for cancellation of bail.

Key takeaways

The Court expressly avoided expressing any opinion on whether the applicant's promise of marriage was genuine or false and whether the physical relationship was consensual, leaving the conclusion to the Trial Court on the evidence presented and its interpretation as per law.obiter¶13
It was made clear that the observations made in granting bail shall not in any way affect the trial judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.obiter¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — rape alleged on false promise of marriage — Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Cantt., District Gorakhpur (Case Crime No. 489 of 2024) — applicant in jail since 15.02.2025 — High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J., Court No. 65), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9209 of 2025, order dated 10.4.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:52830) — Court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886 (per which, as reported by the Court, corporeal relationship entered into on a false promise to marry cannot be termed rape), and on Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 — bail application ALLOWED without expressing opinion on merits: release on personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, sureties to be verified, subject to conditions barring tampering with evidence and pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses and requiring appearance before the trial court, breach being ground for cancellation — Court expressly declined to decide whether the promise of marriage was genuine or the relationship consensual, leaving that to the Trial Court, and clarified that its observations shall not affect the trial judge's independent opinion — Counsel: Padmaker Pandey (brief of Abhishek Tiwari) for applicant; Jai Kishan Chaurasia, State Law Officer, for the State.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52830

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9209 of 2025 Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Kurmi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Tiwari,Mamta Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 22.03.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant.

Heard Sri Padmaker Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Abhishek Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 489 of 2024, under Sections 376, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and Sections 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Cantt., District - Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have established corporeal relationship with the victim on the false promise of marriage and had later on refused to comply with the said promise.

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. As per the statement of the victim, she is 22 years old but as per her educational certificate, she was marginally less than 18 years. The said education certificate of the victim has no evidentiary value in light of Section 94 of J.J. Act.

Learned counsel has further stated that there is no clinching evidence to suggest that the applicant misled the victim from the beginning. The informant has converted a failed consensual physical relationship into a criminal case. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.02.2025 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 Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2019 (9) SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886 , has stated that entering into any kind of corporeal relationship with a person on the false promise to marry cannot be termed as rape.

This Court has avoided expressing its opinion as the case hinges on whether the applicant's promise of marriage was genuine or false and whether the physical relationship was consensual or not. It is for the Trial Court to draw a conclusion which will depend on the evidence presented before it and its interpretation as per law.

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- Awadhesh Kumar Kurmi, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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:- 10.4.2025/Siddhant

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad