Once the first informant admitted before the trial court that she had lodged a false POCSO rape case against her brother through her minor daughter, the Allahabad High Court directed an FIR against her and granted bail to the accused. Both witnesses had turned hostile at trial.
Prayagraj: A mother’s own testimony at trial has led the Allahabad High Court to direct the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, to register an FIR against her under Section 22 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Court found that she had admitted before the trial court to lodging a false rape case against her brother, the maternal uncle of her minor daughter, and granted bail to the accused [Applicant v. State of U.P.].
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed the order on October 28, 2026 on the bail application of the accused, who had been booked by Meerut police under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the POCSO Act. In keeping with the law on anonymity in POCSO matters, the names of the child, her mother and the accused are not being published.
The direction and its basis
Examining the trial court testimony of the girl (P.W.-1) and her mother (P.W.-2), the Court held:
“From a perusal of the statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, it is clear that P.W.-2 (first informant) has lodged a false case against the applicant, and this fact has been admitted by her in her statement before the trial court. Therefore, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, is directed to register an F.I.R. against P.W.-2 (first informant) for lodging a false case against the applicant, as per Section 22 of the POCSO Act.”
Taking note of the testimony indicating that a false case had been lodged, the Court granted bail to the accused.
What the witnesses said
The prosecution case was that the minor’s maternal uncle had repeatedly raped her. During the trial, however, both the girl and her mother, who was the first informant, did not support the prosecution and were declared hostile.
Counsel for the accused told the High Court that the girl had stated in her testimony that her uncle had only scolded her for using a mobile phone, and that this had prompted the false allegation. The mother, in her own testimony, said she had lodged the FIR under pressure from a neighbour, that her daughter had never told her of any sexual assault, and that the police had recorded her statement incorrectly.
The accused also submitted that he had been in jail for a long period. The State opposed the bail plea but could not dispute the facts on record.
Where Section 22 fits in
Section 22 of the POCSO Act makes it an offence to make a false complaint or give false information against a person with the intention to humiliate, extort, threaten or defame him for an offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the Act. The provision exempts the child from punishment for a false complaint, so liability, if any, falls on the adult who set the case in motion. The High Court’s direction applies that safeguard: it acts on the informant’s own admission before the trial court and leaves the child untouched.
The order also shows how bail courts weigh trial testimony in POCSO cases. Where the child and the informant have both resiled and given an innocent explanation on oath, continued custody of the accused becomes hard to justify, even as the trial runs its course. At the same time, POCSO’s strict anonymity rule continues to protect the child whether the allegation is ultimately proved or found false.
What the order does not decide
The trial is still pending. The bail order does not decide the charge, and the accused is presumed innocent until the trial court rules. The direction to register an FIR against the first informant only sets the criminal law in motion; any allegation against her will have to be investigated and proved in accordance with law.
Case Title: Applicant v. State of U.P. (names withheld to protect the minor’s identity)
Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, Allahabad High Court
Date of Order: October 28, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Syed Shahnawaz Shah for the applicant; Additional Government Advocate Bhupendra Pal Singh for the State of Uttar Pradesh
If you know of a child in distress or at risk, call CHILDLINE at 1098.