Allowed¶15

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

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2025BAIL/10073/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Aazad bail allowed; Allahabad High Court; Justice Krishan Pahal; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10073 of 2025; Case Crime No. 1174 of 2024; Police Station Khurja Nagar; District Bulandshahr; Sections 70(2), 351(2) BNS; Sections 5(G)/6 POCSO Act; victim statement u/s 183 BNSS gang rape allegation; Satender Kumar Antil 2022 INSC 690; Manish Sisodia 2024 INSC 595; personal bond and two sureties; bail conditions; no criminal history; in jail since 11.12.2024; order date 5.4.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:48819.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Aazad on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to verification of sureties and conditions of no tampering with evidence, no pressurising/intimidation of prosecution witnesses, and appearance before the trial court on fixed dates. ¶15

Aazad vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Aazad, accused in Case Crime No. 1174 of 2024 (Sections 70(2), 351(2) of BNS; Sections 5(G)/6 of POCSO Act), Police Station Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr, is entitled to bail during the pendency of trial.

¶7

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, submissions of counsel, evidence on record and the settled law of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (2022 INSC 690) and Manish Sisodia (2024 INSC 595), and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail and the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the sureties verified before issuance of the release order.

¶15

Key takeaways

Bail conditions imposed: the applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial, shall not pressurise/intimidate prosecution witnesses, and shall appear before the trial court on dates fixed; breach of any condition shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.ratio¶16
Observations made in granting bail shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.obiter¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Justice Krishan Pahal), Court No. 65, CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 10073 of 2025: bail allowed to applicant Aazad sought in Case Crime No. 1174 of 2024 under Sections 70(2), 351(2) of BNS and Sections 5(G)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr, during pendency of trial. Taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI (2022 INSC 690) and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 INSC 595), and expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held the applicant had made out a case for bail. Release ordered on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, with surety verification before the release order, subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence; no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; appearance on fixed dates), breach being a ground for cancellation. Context extracted: alleged rape of 10.12.2024 at about 02:00 AM; counsel urged FIR delay of about one day, absence of medical corroboration, and alteration of the victim's u/s 183 BNSS statement to allege gang rape involving one more co-accused; applicant jailed since 11.12.2024 with no criminal history, which the State Law Officer did not dispute. Observations in granting bail not to affect the trial judge's independent opinion. Order dated 5.4.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:48819.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:48819

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10073 of 2025 Applicant :- Aazad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 13.03.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant.

¶6

Heard Sri Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Kumar, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record.

¶7

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 1174 of 2024, under Sections 70(2), 351(2) of BNS and Sections 5(G)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Khurja Nagar, District - Bulandshahr, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the victim on 10.12.2024 at about 02:00 AM.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶10

Learned counsel has also stated that the consent of the victim can be drawn from the fact that she had left her house on her own and reach the house of the applicant at 02:00 AM and that too during winter season. There is no medical corroboration of the incident as the victim was medically examined on the date of institution of FIR itself. The prosecution story has been changed drastically in her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS whereby she has levelled the allegations of gang rape against the applicant and one another co-accused person.

¶11

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false

¶12

implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant- Aazad , 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 following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶16

i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶17

iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date:- 5.4.2025 Siddhant

¶21

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aazad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manuj Kumar @ Anurag @ Mannu vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kalindi Charan Alias Kali Charan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sonu Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ravi Kashyap vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Chauhan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ritik Alias Pawan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others