Saurabh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21952 of 2025

Saurabh

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Quasim Khan, Shams Uz Zaman
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 65

¶6

HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

¶7

Office vide its report dated 23.08.2025 has reported that notice issued to the informant has been served personally.

¶8

List revised. None appears for the informant inspite of service of notice. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶9

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that by the efflux of time, trial began and during the trial, the statement of P.W.1-victim has been recorded and she has not supported the prosecution version, copy of which statement is annexed as Annexure-SA1 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application. He thus submits that no offence against the applicant is made out. 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 20.04.2025, having no criminal history.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the

¶11

BAIL No. 21952 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.

¶14

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let applicant Saurabh involved in Case Crime No.106 of 2025 under Sections 70(2) of BNS and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012 Police Station Binauli, District Baghpat, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶16

A. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

B. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

C. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

D. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is an accused, or suspected, of the commission of he is suspected.

¶20

E. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

¶22

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)

¶23

October 17, 2025 S.Ali

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh 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