X in Crime No. 390/2016 vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

X in Crime No. 390/2016 vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant-appellant (juvenile convicted under Section 354(Ka) IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act) should be released on bail during pendency of the criminal appeal preferred against his conviction and sentence.

Court's answer

The Court held that the gravity of the offence, together with the prosecutrix being a minor aged about 16 years and her having become pregnant subsequent to the incident, all point towards the culpability of the applicant-appellant; consequently the appellant is not entitled to be released on bail during pendency of the appeal, and the bail application stands rejected.

Ratio / Principle

The Court recorded that the stated considerations — gravity of the offence, the prosecutrix being aged about 16 years (i.e., a minor), and her pregnancy subsequent to the incident — collectively point towards the culpability of the applicant-appellant; the counsel's submissions regarding the 16-17 years radiological age determination and the declined DNA test did not secure bail.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Alok Mathur, J.) — Order dated 03.04.2025 on Civil Misc. (Bail) Application No. 1 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 721 of 2025 (under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., now Section 415(2) BNSS): post-conviction bail sought by a juvenile appellant convicted under Section 354(Ka) IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act by the Juvenile Court/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Hardoi (Sessions Trial No. 07 of 2017, Case Crime No. 390 of 2016, PS Bilgram, judgment/order dated 10.02.2025, sentence four years rigorous imprisonment plus Rs.5000/- fine with default stipulation) — REJECTED. Grounds recorded: gravity of the offence; prosecutrix a minor aged about 16 years (radiological age reported 16-17 years; DNA test declined by her); prosecutrix became pregnant after the 15.12.2016 incident; all such facts point towards culpability of the applicant-appellant, who was therefore not found entitled to bail. Appeal listed in due course.

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 721 of 2025

Appellant :- X In Crime No. 390/2016 Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Raghunath Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

Order on Civil Misc. (Bail) Application No. 1 of 2025

Heard Sri Raghunath Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. Objections filed by learned A.G.A. are taken on record.

Present application for bail has been filed in the instant criminal appeal with prayer to release the applicant-appellant on bail during pendency of the criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. (now Section 415(2) of BNSS) filed against the judgment and order dated 10.02.2025, passed by the Juvenile Court/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Hardoi in Sessions Trial No. 07 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 390 of 2016, under Sections 354(Ka), 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Bilgram, District - Hardoi, convicting and sentencing the applicant-appellant under Section 354(Ka) IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act for four years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/-, alongwith default stipulation.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicantappellant that accused-appellant is juvenile and has been convicted under Section 354(Ka)IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act. According to the prosecution case on the date of incident i.e. 15.12.2016, when the prosecutrix who is stated to aged about 14 years and was studying in Class 8th, had gone to ease herself in the fields, when the accused came and caught hold the prosecutrix from behind and committed sexual assault on her and when the prosecutrix raised alarm, the brother of prosecutrix reached on the spot and it is then the accusedappellant fled from the scene threatening the prosecutrix.

It has been further stated that subsequently, the prosecutrix became pregnant and a first information report was lodged against the appellant. During trial, the complainant who is the father of prosecutrix as well as the prosecutrix were duly examined who have supported the case of the prosecution.

Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that radiological age of the prosecutrix has been determined to be 16-17 years and even the DNA test was declined by the prosecutrix and accordingly on this ground bail may be granted to the applicant.

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has opposed the bail application by submitting that looking to the gravity of offence committed by the applicant-appellant he not entitled to be released on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Considering the gravity of offence and also considering the fact that prosecutrix is aged about 16 years which shows that she is minor and also the fact that she became pregnant subsequent to the incident, all these facts point towards culpability of the applicant-appellant. Hence this Court does not find the appellant entitled to be released on bail.

In view of above, present bail application is rejected .

List the appeal in due course.

Order Date :- 3.4.2025 A. Verma

(Alok Mathur, J.)

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench