Allowed¶23

Mohammad Soheluddin v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2025BAIL/1733/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:16956 | Allahabad High Court, Justice Krishan Pahal | CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 1733 of 2025, decided 6.2.2025 | Bail under Ss. 137(2), 87, 64(1) BNS and 3/4(2) POCSO Act; enticement of minor; ossification test; age determination margin 1-2 years; no criminal history; bail is a rule and jail an exception; Article 21; presumption of innocence; Jaya Mala; Mohd. Imran Khan; Niranjan Singh; Satender Kumar Antil; Manish Sisodia; P.S. Lohamandi, District Agra; custody since 8.7.2024.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Mohammad Soheluddin on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions of non-tampering with evidence and personal appearance before the Trial Court at specified stages. ¶23

Mohammad Soheluddin vs State of U.P. and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Mohammad Soheluddin, arraigned in Case Crime No. 127 of 2024 under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) B.N.S. and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, P.S. Lohamandi, District Agra, is entitled to bail during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, and considering the facts, submissions and evidence on record, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and allowed the bail application.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Learned AGA could not point to any exceptional circumstances warranting denial of bail to the applicant.

¶19

Key takeaways

The object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at trial; no material was shown suggesting the applicant would flee from justice, thwart the course of justice, repeat offences or intimidate witnesses.ratio¶20
The presumption of innocence gives rise to bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception; the Article 21 right to life and liberty cannot be taken away merely because a person stands accused, a principle recapitulated in Satender Kumar Antil and reiterated in Manish Sisodia.ratio¶16
The applicant was ordered released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence and shall remain personally present before the Trial Court at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — Offences under Ss. 137(2), 87, 64(1) B.N.S. and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Case Crime No. 127 of 2024, P.S. Lohamandi, District Agra — applicant alleged to have enticed away the informant's minor daughter on 6.7.2024 — ossification test report placed victim's age at 17 years; Court relied on Jaya Mala (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Mohd. Imran Khan (2011) 10 SCC 192 that a radiologist's estimate carries a margin of 1–2 years on either side — no criminal history, undisputed by AGA — applicant in jail since 8.7.2024 — following Niranjan Singh (AIR 1980 SC 785) the Court confined itself to prima facie satisfaction without exhaustive exploration of merits — no exceptional circumstances shown to deny bail; presumption of innocence and Article 21 yield the principle that bail is a rule and jail an exception (Satender Kumar Antil, 2022 INSC 690; Manish Sisodia, 2024 INSC 595) — bail application allowed on personal bond and two sureties with conditions; observations not to affect the trial.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:16956

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1733 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Mohammad Soheluddin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar Kuntal,Surendra Mohan Sharma

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶7

List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice has been served to the informant on 19.1.2025.

¶8

Heard Sri Mahesh Kumar Kuntal, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri D.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 127 of 2024, U/S 137(2), 87, 64(1) B.N.S. and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Lohamandi, District Agra, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant on 6.7.2024.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that 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. It is stated that there is no time of offence mentioned in the FIR, as such, it seems to be delayed. The victim by her looks, seems to be major, although as per the ossification test report, her age has come up to be 17 years, as such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side.

¶12

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 implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 8.7.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but has not disputed the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant.

¶14

In the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Jaya Mala Vs. State of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192, it has been opined that the radiologist cannot predict the correct date of birth rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 .

¶18

Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasized that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception” .

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, 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 .

¶23

Let the applicant- Mohammad Soheluddin 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.

¶24

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶25

(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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Shalini

¶29

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶30

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

Mohammad Soheluddin v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Soheluddin 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sueb vs State of U.P.

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

Smt Vineeta vs State of U.P.

Harinaam Kori vs State of U.P.

Saurabh Yadav Alias Saurav vs State of U.P.

Anshuman Singh vs State of U.P.