Salim vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the victim in her statements has made specific allegation against the applicant for committing her rape, but at the trial the victim (P.W.1) in her testimony has not made any allegation of rape against the applicant and she has not supported the prosecution case, which statement has been filed as Annexure No. S.A.1 to the supplementary affidavit filed today. Thus, it is argued that there is bleak chance that prosecution may prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the applicant may be convicted. 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 applicant is languishing in jail since 29.04.2025, having 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 adjudged before conclusion of trial, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence, but he has not disputed that the victim in her statement has not supported the prosecution case during the course of trial and she has been declared hostile.

¶14

BAIL No. 21319 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

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.

¶17

Let the applicant-Salim, be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 84 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 65 of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station- Bilsi, DistrictBadaun, 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:

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)

¶25

November 13, 2025 Mustaqeem.

¶26

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salim 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

Saurabh vs State of U.P. and Another

Jaypal Rajput vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vikas Shankhwar vs State of Up and 3 Others

Smt. Nemvati vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiva Alias Shivam Goshwami vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dilshana vs State of U.P. and Another