Sonu Kumar vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

Sonu Kumar vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Sonu Kumar 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.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Sonu Kumar is entitled to bail in Case Crime No. 75 of 2026 under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) and 64(1) of BNS, Police Station Bakewar, District Etawah, during the pendency of trial. +1 more

Court's answer

Prima facie the applicant has made out a case for bail and the bail application is allowed, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Ratio / Principle

There is an inordinate delay of seven months in lodging the FIR, and as per her own statement the victim is 18 years old.

Key takeaways

There is no clinching or conclusive evidence on record to suggest that the applicant misled the victim from the very beginning or induced her under any false promise or fraud.ratio¶18
The material on record indicates that what essentially remained a failed consensual corporeal relationship has later been converted into a criminal case against the applicant.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail allowed — Offences under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) and 64(1) of BNS, Case Crime No. 75 of 2026, PS Bakewar, District Etawah — Allegations of physical relationship on a promise of marriage — Court, taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 (9) SCC 608, Ansaar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886, and Kunal Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal (SLP (Crl.) No. 7004 of 2025), noted the seven-month delay in lodging the FIR, the victim's stated age of 18 years, and the absence of clinching or conclusive evidence that the applicant misled her from the very beginning or induced her under any false promise or fraud — Held, prima facie, that a failed consensual corporeal relationship had been converted into a criminal case — Without expressing any opinion on merits, applicant released on bail on personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses and to appear before the trial court; breach entails cancellation; observations shall not affect the trial on merits. (Krishan Pahal, J.; May 12, 2026)

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16104 of 2026

Sonu Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus
State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Ashish Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65

(Sl. No. 34 out of 243)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

List has been revised.

Heard Sri Ram Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 75 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) and 64(1) of BNS, Police Station - Bakewar, District - Etawah, during the pendency of trial.

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.

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.

Recently, the Supreme Court in Kunal Chatterjee vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (Special Leave petition (Crl.) No. 7004 of 2025) reiterating the aforesaid viewpoint stated that delayed allegations of

BAIL No. 16104 of 2026

2

consensual physical relations, chiefly when based on a failed promise to marry and unsupported by evidence, do not constitute rape or grounds under POCSO if the circumstances indicate abuse of criminal process and quashed the proceedings to prevent misuse of law.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, this Court finds that there is an inordinate delay of seven months in lodging the FIR. As per her own statement, she is 18 years old. There is no clinching or conclusive evidence on record to suggest that the applicant misled the victim from the very beginning or induced her under any false promise or fraud. The material available on record indicates that what essentially remained a failed consensual corporeal relationship has later been converted into a criminal case against the applicant.

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- Sonu Kumar, 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.)

May 12, 2026 Siddhant

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