Sahil Urf Mohd Saood vs State of U.P. and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

Sahil Urf Mohd Saood vs State of U.P. and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Sahil Urf Mohd Saood to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required; breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail, and the observations shall not affect the trial on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Sahil Urf Mohd Saood is entitled to bail during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No.01 of 2026 under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2), 351(3) BNS and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Siddharthnagar, District Siddharthnagar.

Court's answer

The statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS prima facie indicates her consent, as she had travelled with the applicant to several places and did not raise any alarm whatsoever.

Ratio / Principle

As per the ossification test report, the victim is stated to be about 16 years of age.

Key takeaways

Relying on the Supreme Court judgments in Jaya Mala and Mohd. Imran Khan, the opinion of a radiologist regarding age is not exact and carries a margin of error of 1-2 years on either side.ratio¶12
There is no medical evidence on record to corroborate the alleged incident.ratio¶12
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie the applicant has made out a case for bail and the bail application is allowed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — Offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2), 351(3) BNS and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Siddharthnagar, District Siddharthnagar (Case Crime No.01 of 2026) — Victim's statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS prima facie indicates consent, she having travelled with the applicant to several places without raising any alarm — Ossification test report places victim's age at about 16 years — Following Jaya Mala v. State of J&K, (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Mohd. Imran Khan v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192, radiologist's opinion on age is not exact and carries a margin of error of 1-2 years on either side — No medical evidence on record to corroborate the alleged incident — Without expressing any opinion on merits, applicant held to have made out a case for bail — Released on personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses and to appear before the trial court; breach entails cancellation; observations not to affect trial on merits.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12184 of 2026

Sahil Urf Mohd Saood

.....Applicant(s)

Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Muhammad Azam Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65

(Sr. No.64 out of 277)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 04.04.2026, but none present on behalf of the informant.

Heard Sri Muhammad Azam, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.01 of 2026, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2), 351(3) BNS and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, Police StationSiddharthnagar, District- Siddharthnagar, during the pendency of trial.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS prima facie indicates her consent, as she had travelled with the applicant to several places and did not raise any alarm whatsoever. As per the ossification test report, the victim is stated to be about 16 years of age. In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Jaya Mala Vs. State of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192 ,, it has been held that the opinion of a radiologist regarding age is not exact and carries a margin of error of 1–2 years on either side. Furthermore, there is no medical evidence on record to corroborate the alleged incident.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie the

BAIL No. 12184 of 2026

2

Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

Let the applicant- Sahil Urf Mohd Saood , be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.

Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

April 20, 2026

(Ravi Kant)

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