Sahil vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
- Neutral2026:AHC:107688
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A court may grant bail in a criminal case where the victim's statement recorded under section 183 BNSS demonstrates consent, the applicant and victim cohabited for an extended period without the victim raising alarm, there is an absence of medical corroboration of the alleged incident, and there is no recovery of incriminating material such as indecent videos or photographs, even where the charge involves offences under the BNS and the POCSO Act. Observations made by a court in granting bail do not bind or influence the trial court's independent formation of opinion on the basis of witness testimony and evidence during trial. Breach of bail conditions, including tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or non-appearance before the trial court, constitutes grounds for cancellation of bail.
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 A.G.A., notice has been served to the informant on 18.4.2026.
2. 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.
3. 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.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the 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 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.
6. 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.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
8. 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
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