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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Chandan Chauhan 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 (sureties to be verified before release order), subject to conditions: (i) not to tamper with evidence during trial; (ii) not to pressurise/intimidate prosecution witnesses; (iii) to appear before the trial court on dates fixed; breach of any condition to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant-Chandan Chauhan, arraigned in Case Crime No. 67 of 2025 under Sections 65(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act, is entitled to bail during the pendency of trial. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, submissions of counsel, evidence on record and the settled law of the Supreme Court, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the applicant has made out a case for bail and the bail application is allowed.

Ratio / Principle

Applicant-Chandan Chauhan 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, 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 to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Key takeaways

The Court declined to express any opinion on whether the promise of marriage was genuine or false and whether the physical relationship was consensual, leaving that conclusion to the Trial Court on the evidence presented before it.obiter¶14
It remained undisputed, and was taken into account in allowing bail, that the applicant and the victim married each other subsequent to the institution of the FIR.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Krishan Pahal, J., order dated 4.4.2025, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:47920) in CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 9332 of 2025: Bail allowed to applicant Chandan Chauhan in Case Crime No. 67 of 2025, Police Station Shahpur, District Gorakhpur, under Sections 65(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, where the prosecution alleged a corporeal relationship on a false promise of marriage. The applicant and the victim having married after the FIR - a fact the informant and the State could not dispute - and the applicant in custody since 16.02.2025, the Court, relying on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra, 2019 (9) SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886 (as stating that a corporeal relationship on a false promise to marry cannot be termed rape), and on Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595, granted bail without expressing any opinion on merits, expressly leaving the questions of the genuineness of the promise and of consent to the Trial Court. Release ordered on a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence, no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses, appearance on dates fixed); breach to be a ground for cancellation. Observations in the bail order not to affect the trial Judge's independent opinion.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:47920

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9332 of 2025

Applicant :- Chandan Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Prabodh Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

List has been revised.

Heard Sri Arvind Prabodh Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Naushad Ahmad, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 67 of 2025, under Sections 65(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Shahpur, 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. It is further stated that the applicant and the victim have married each other subsequent to the institution of FIR. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.02.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the fact that the applicant and the victim have married each other subsequent to the institution of FIR.

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- Chandan Chauhan, 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:- 4.4.2025 Siddhant

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

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