Mohd Amir vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
- Neutral2026:AHC:106122
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a case involves allegations under the POCSO Act and the statement of the alleged victim prima facie indicates her consent, as evidenced by her voluntary accompaniment with the accused and subsequent marriage, and the ossification test report places the victim's age within a margin of error that could place her above the age of majority, and there is an absence of medical evidence to corroborate the alleged incident, the court may grant bail to the accused during the pendency of trial on the basis that a prima facie case for bail has been made out.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned AGA, notice to the informant has been served on 28.04.2026 but none is present on behalf of the informant.
2. Heard Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 23 of 2026, under Sections 137(2), 64(1) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Kiratpur, District - Bijnor, during the pendency of trial.
4. 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 accompanied the applicant all the way to Maharashtra and married him. The ossification test report places the victim's age at about 16 years which carries margin of error of 1?2 years on either side. Furthermore, there is no medical evidence on record to corroborate the alleged incident.
5. 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.
6. Let the applicant- Mohd Amir, 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.
7. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 7, 2026
Siddhant
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