Disposed¶18

Ramu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2026BAIL/41944/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim order in bail application (BNS Ss. 137(2), 87, 65(1); POCSO S. 3/4(2); Case Crime No. 27 of 2025, PS Sachendi, Kanpur Nagar): victim's age unresolved as no ossification test conducted; Court directs CJM Kanpur Nagar to conduct test via CMO's Board within ten days, report in sealed cover by next listing, communication within 48 hours, relisting 03.02.2026; bail undecided.

What did the court decide?

Interim directions only: ossification test of the victim to be conducted by the Board of the Chief Medical Officer within ten days and the report submitted in sealed cover by the next date; order to be communicated within 48 hours; bail application listed for 03.02.2026. Bail itself neither granted nor refused in this order. ¶18

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the victim's age, to be determined by ossification test, bears on the consideration of the applicant's bail application in Case Crime No. 27 of 2025 (B.N.S./POCSO offences). +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The Court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, to get the ossification test of the victim of Case Crime No. 27 of 2025 conducted.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

If not yet conducted, the ossification test is to be carried out by the Board of the Chief Medical Officer concerned within ten days.

¶13

Key takeaways

The concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to submit the ossification report before the Court in a sealed cover by the next date of listing.ratio¶13
The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate the order to the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate within 48 hours.ratio¶16
A copy of the order is to be placed before the Registrar (Compliance) as well as the learned A.G.A. for necessary compliance.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.) in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41944 of 2025 (Ramu v. State of U.P. and 3 others), arising from Case Crime No. 27 of 2025 under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) B.N.S. and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, PS Sachendi, Kanpur Nagar: counsel for the applicant conceded, undisputed by the State and informant, that no ossification test of the victim had been conducted. The Court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar to have the test conducted by the Board of the Chief Medical Officer within ten days and to submit the report in a sealed cover by the next date of listing; Registrar (Compliance) to communicate the order within 48 hours; matter listed on 03.02.2026. Bail not decided at this stage.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41944 of 2025

Ramu

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar, Vinay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 65

¶8

HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

¶9

Shri Sanjay Srivastava, Advocate, has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of informant, which is taken on record.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the material on record.

¶11

After arguing the matter at length, when this Court made query about the age of the victim as per ossification test, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that till date no ossification test has been conducted.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant could not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

In view of above, this Court directs the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, to get the ossification test of the victim of Case Crime No. 27 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4(2) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Sachendi, District Kanpur Nagar, be conducted, if not yet conducted, by the Board of the Chief Medical Officer concerned within a ten days from today. After the said test or has already been conducted, the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to submit the ossification report before this Court in a sealed cover by the next date of listing.

¶14

BAIL No. 41944 of 2025

¶15

¶16

Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate the order passed by this Court to the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate within 48 hours.

¶17

Let a copy of this order be placed before the Registrar (Compliance) as well as learned A.G.A. for necessary compliance.

¶18

List on 03.02.2026, showing the name of Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, as one of the counsel appearing for the other side.

¶19

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)

¶20

January 19, 2026

¶21

Mustaqeem.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajendra vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jaypal Srivas vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shivam Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mubarik vs State of U.P.

Akash vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Uday Pratap Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others