Nikhil @ Nikil vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53543

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2011 of 2025

Applicant :- Nikhil @ Nikil Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Tripathi,Shiv Shanker Mishra 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 17.1.2025.

¶8

Heard Sri Kuldeep Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shyam Dhar Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.821 of 2024, under Sections 70(2), 78, 126(2), 74, 351(2) B.N.S. and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the applicant and two other co-accused persons are stated to have committed gang-rape with the victim on 3.5.2024. Subsequent to it, the applicant and co-accused persons tried to take her away on 19.8.2024. The victim is stated to have gone to the police station on 21.8.2024 and 9.9.2024 but the FIR is stated to have been instituted on 20.9.2024.

¶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 by about one month from the date of last offence of attempt. As far as the offence of rape is concerned, it is also delayed by about four months. There is no medical corroboration of the incident.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the role of catching hold of the victim by hand is assigned to the applicant and the role of raping the victim has been assigned to co-accused

¶13

person Gaurav. As per the school certificate of Class-10th, the date of birth of the victim is stated to be 1.1.2009, as such her age comes out to be a bit less than 16 years. She herself has stated her age to be 16 years at the stage of recording of her statement U/s 183 B.N.S.S. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.10.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶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

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 .

¶17

Let the applicant- Nikhil @ Nikil , 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 :- 11.4.2025 Vikas

¶23

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶24

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

Nikhil @ Nikil v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhil @ Nikil 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

Zaid vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Udaybhan Rajpoot Alias Shiva Bhanne vs State of U.P.

Sachin S/O Hariom vs State of U.P. through Its Secretary Home, Govt. of U.P. at Lucknow & 3 Others

Furqan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ravi Kashyap vs State of U.P.

Lullar Alias Shubham Pandey Alias Surendra Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. and 3 Others