Subhash Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83016

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11775 of 2025

Applicant :- Subhash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar,Janardan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 22.3.2025.

¶8

The ossification test report of the victim has been received in compliance of order dated 10.4.2025. As per the report, she is 18 years old. The report be returned to the office of the concerned C.M.O. after retaining the photocopy thereof.

¶9

Heard Sri Janardan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶10

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 224 of 2024, under Sections 376(3), 377, 506 IPC and 5(j)(ii), 5(L) POCSO Act, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut, during the pendency of trial.

¶11

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 as no date and time of offence is mentioned in the FIR.The victim got impregnated, as such, the FIR has been instituted. The said pregnancy has been terminated.

¶12

It is further argued that as per ossification test report, the victim is 18 years old, as such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side.

¶13

There is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.5.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he

¶14

will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but has not disputed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and there being no date and time of offence mentioned in the FIR, 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 .

¶17

Let the applicant- Subhash, 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.

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Shalini

¶23

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases