Chhail Bihari vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
- Neutral2026:AHC:105054
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
In a bail application under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, where the accused is charged with offences against a child victim aged seven years, bail may be refused where the court, having regard to the seriousness of the offence, the nature of the allegations, and the age of the victim, finds the case not a fit one for grant of bail. Where bail is refused in a case involving alleged offences against a child, the trial court shall proceed to decide the case expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party, in accordance with law and absent legal impediment. Observations made by the court in the course of deciding a bail application are limited to the facts relevant to that application and shall not prejudice or bear upon the consideration of the merits of the case at trial.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. List has been revised. Learned State Law Officer has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 2.1.2026.
2. Heard Sri Shahenshah Akhtar Khan, learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.452 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 62, 65(2) BNS and 5M/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have molested the minor daughter of the informant on 23.9.2025 at about 01:00 p.m.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about 8 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no medical corroboration of the incident, as such, the applicant is entitled to bail. There is no criminal history of the applicant and he is in jail since 24.9.2025. He is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the instant case is of extreme mental depravity of the applicant and he does not deserve any leniency by this Court as the victim was only seven years old. The allegations are serious in nature and the FIR is prompt, as it was instituted the same night of the incident. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to bail.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the seriousness of offence, the nature of allegations against the applicant and the age of the victim being seven years old only, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.
9. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Vikas Verma
Connected matters
Decided by the same order
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free