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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted to applicant Sahil on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to verification of sureties, with conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and to appear before the trial court as required; breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Sahil is entitled to bail in Case Crime No. 550 of 2025 under Sections 65(1), 137(2) BNS and 3/4 (2) POCSO Act, Police Station Hasanpur, District Amroha, during the pendency of trial.

Court's answer

Considering the victim's statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS whereby she appears to be a consenting party (having lived with the applicant for about one month and travelled with him without raising any alarm), the absence of medical corroboration of the incident, and the absence of recovery of any indecent video or photograph of the victim, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail; accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant Sahil 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, subject to verification of sureties, on conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required; breach of these conditions shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Key takeaways

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¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Krishan Pahal, J.) allowed the bail application of Sahil in Case Crime No. 550 of 2025 under Sections 65(1), 137(2) BNS and 3/4 (2) POCSO Act, Police Station Hasanpur, District Amroha. Taking into account the victim's statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS, whereby she appeared to be a consenting party having lived with the applicant for about one month and travelled with him without raising any alarm, the absence of medical corroboration of the incident, and the absence of recovery of any indecent video or photograph of the victim, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held prima facie that a case for bail was made out. Bail was granted on a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to verification, with conditions against tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses and requiring appearance before the trial court; breach was made a ground for cancellation. The Court clarified that its observations would not affect the trial Judge's independent opinion based on the testimony of witnesses.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13267 of 2026

Sahil

.....Applicant(s)

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

Court No. - 65

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice has been served to the informant on 18.4.2026.

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra Prasad, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 550 of 2025, under Sections 65(1), 137(2) BNS and 3/4 (2) POCSO Act, Police Station Hasanpur, District Amroha, during the pendency of trial.

4, The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she lived with the applicant for about one month and had gone to several places with him but did not raise any alarm, whatsoever. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The victim, by her physical appearance, seems to be major although her age is 17 years as per ossification test report and a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration t he statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, whereby she seems to be consenting party, as she lived with the applicant about one month and had gone to several places with him and did not raise any alarm

BAIL No. 13267 of 2026

2

during the said sojourn, there being no medical corroboration of the incident, there being no recovery of any indecent video or photograph of the victim and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie, the 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, 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 verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.

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.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

May 7, 2026 Sushma

Digitally signed by :- SUSHAMA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad