Shafiq vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41064

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10877 of 2024

Applicant :- Shafiq Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Lalji Prasad Shukla,Narendra Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

As per the office report, notices to the complainant are served. However, none appears on behalf of the complainant.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the accused is habitually harassing the victim while on her way to the school. Due to this act of the accused, the other minor girls have stopped going to school.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. There is no injury found on the body of the victim. The maximum sentence under the offence in which the applicant is charged, is up to 7 years.

¶10

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 29.8.2024. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, gravity of the offence so also the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is languishing in jail since 29.8.2024; charge-sheet in the case has been filed and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant- Shaifq involved in Case Crime No. 385 of 2024, under Sections 74, 75(2) (3), 78(2), 351(2) of B.N.S. &

¶15

Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Laharpur, DistrictSitapur, 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of B.N.S.

¶22

Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Shravan

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shafiq v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shafiq v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kaleef Hussain Zaidi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Lko. and 3 Others

Nitin Tripathi vs Board of Revenue Thru. Chairman and 2 Others

Smt. Monika Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Bal Vikas Awam Pustahar Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Halim Khan and 39 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Irrigation and Water Resources Lko. and 2 Others

Raj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Doodh Nath Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Co. Operative Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 2 Others