Niyaj vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64761

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12651 of 2025

Applicant :- Niyaj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Upadhyay,Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

As informed by learned A.G.A., notice has been served to the informant on 15.4.2025.

¶8

Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 18 of 2025, U/S 191(2), 191(3), 190, 65(1), 74, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 333, 118(1) B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Tarkulwa, District Deoria, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

PROSECUTION STORY:

¶11

The applicant alongwith other co-accused persons is stated to have assaulted the informant and his daughter and had outraged her modesty on 14.1.2025 at about 2.30 pm.

¶12

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT:

¶13

The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. He has nothing to do with the said offence.

¶14

The FIR is delayed by more than three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶15

It is true that the informant had sustained injuries on his body parts but they are not grievous in nature. The victim has not

¶16

sustained any injuries, whatsoever. There was no allegation of rape at the stage of institution of FIR and at the stage of recording of her statement u/s 180 B.N.S.S. but the allegations of rape have been escalated by the informant in her statement recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S. for the first time, that too, after legal consultation and deliberations.

¶17

There is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.3.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE:

¶19

The bail application has been opposed on the ground that as per ossification test report, the victim is 16 years but the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant has not been disputed.

¶20

CONCLUSION:

¶21

The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

¶22

Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶23

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA.

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the delay of more than three days in institution of FIR, and the age of the victim being 16 years, as per ossification test report, 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.

¶25

Let the applicant- Niyaj involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶26

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶27

(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.

¶28

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶29

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.

¶30

Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Shalini

¶31

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶32

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niyaj 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

Chandan @ Gorakh Saroj vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Wasim Khan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Brijesh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Srivas vs State of U.P.

Satendra vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Afroz Alias Chand Babu vs State of U.P. and 3 Others