Adil vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:46595

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10416 of 2025 Applicant :- Adil Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Pandey,Shubham Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Kumar Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Karunesh Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.507 of 2024, under Sections 65(2), 115(2) B.N.S. and 5(m)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Loni, District- Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have disrobed the victim and had touched her inappropriately on 21.9.2024 at about 03:30 a.m.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The FIR was instituted with the allegations that applicant had disrobed the victim and touched her inappropriately, but there is no allegation of rape in it. Subsequently, during the statement of the victim recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S., the allegations of rape have been made.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the said allegations have been made after legal consultation as the informant had refused the medical examination of the victim and subsequently after a delay of fifteen days the medical examination has been conducted and no injury has been found on the body of the victim, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. The matter has been settled between the parties. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 9.10.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Learned counsel for the informant has not disputed the said fact that matter has been settled between the parties. Although, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶12

In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

¶13

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 .

¶14

Let the applicant- Adil , 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.

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 3.4.2025/ Vikas

¶20

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adil 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

Jitendra vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Raju vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Islam Alias Samiullah vs State of U.P.

Kanhaiya vs State of U.P through Principal Secretary Home Gov. of U.P at Lucknow and 3 Others

Durgesh Alias Durgesh Kumar Kushwaha vs State of U.P. and 3 Others