Israil vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is named in the F.I.R. with the allegation that he had enticed away minor daughter of the informant aged about 16 years. In her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS the victim said nothing about the applicant as she has not made any allegation against him. In her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS the victim has stated that on the date of occurrence she left her house on her own and went to her friend, thereafter, she went to Poona along with the applicant, she knew him for the last four years, they had solemnized marriage in a temple with each other on their own volition, the applicant had established sexual relations on her wishes. As per her ossification test report the victim was found to be about 18-19 years of age at the time of her ossification test, thus, she was major at the time of alleged incident. Learned counsel further submits that as per statements of the victim she appears to be a consenting party and applicant has falsely been implicated. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that the applicant is in jail since 13.11.2024, with no criminal history.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be

¶14

BAIL No. 21097 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.

¶17

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶18

Let the applicant-Israil, be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 854 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 64, 87 of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police StationRobertsganj, District- Sonbhadra, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶19

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶20

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶21

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶22

iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶23

v) 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶25

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)

¶26

November 21, 2025

¶27

Mustaqeem.

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Israil 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

Sumit Sharma vs State of U.P.

Prashant vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prem Narayan Singh Alias Babu Alias Bauva vs State of U.P.

Ganga @ Ajhar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sameer and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Billu Alias Sharif Ahamad vs State of U.P. and Another