Shadab v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2025BAIL/2681/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail allowed to Shadab in Case Crime No. 307 of 2023 (Sections 376, 302, 504, 506 IPC; 3/4 POCSO Act; 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act), PS Pisawan, District Sitapur; FIR allegations of gunpoint abduction and blood on spot not substantiated; parity with three bailed co-accused; applicant in jail since 13.08.2023; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:18042; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Subhash Vidyarthi, J.; Order dated 1.4.2025.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant Shadab on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the magistrate/court concerned, subject to the conditions that he shall not tamper with prosecution evidence, shall not pressurize prosecution witnesses, and shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. ¶¶19

Shadab Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Shadab should be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 307 of 2023, Police Station Pisawan, District Sitapur.

¶¶8

Court's answer

The allegations levelled in the F.I.R. that the applicant and two co-accused persons had taken away the victim after threatening her with a gun and that this was witnessed by a lady could not be established during investigation.

¶¶17

Ratio / Principle

The FIR's allegation that blood was found at the spot of occurrence was not supported by the findings of the inquest report or any other material collected during investigation.

¶¶17

Key takeaways

Taking into account the unsubstantiated allegations, the grant of bail to three co-accused persons, the applicant's absence of criminal history, his custody since 13.08.2023 and the completion of investigation, the aforesaid facts were sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.ratio¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — grant of. Applicant Shadab sought bail in Case Crime No. 307 of 2023 (Police Station Pisawan, District Sitapur) under Sections 376, 302, 504, 506 I.P.C., 3/4 P.O.C.S.O. Act and 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, arising from an F.I.R. alleging that he and co-accused Farooq caught hold of the informant's daughter, co-accused Safi Raza threatening her with a gun, after which the 15-year-old girl was found hanging from a tree with blood allegedly on the soil. The court observed that the FIR allegations of abduction at gunpoint witnessed by a lady were not established during investigation; the blood-at-spot allegation was unsupported by the inquest report or any other material collected during investigation; the inquest disclosed no injury except a ligature mark and the postmortem opined death due to asphyxia due to antimortem hanging. With the charge-sheet filed on 26.09.2023 and the investigation completed, three co-accused (Safi Raza, Lateeq alias Laheek and Farooq @ Sharukh) already granted bail, the 24-year-old applicant having no criminal history and in jail since 13.08.2023, the court found a case for bail made out. Bail allowed subject to conditions: no tampering with prosecution evidence, no pressurizing of prosecution witnesses, and appearance on every date fixed by the trial court. (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18042

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2681 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Shadab

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Sharma,Mohd. Karim,Syed Kamil Hasan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Syed Kamil Hasan, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Sikha Sinha, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the records.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.307 of 2023, under Sections 376, 302, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 P.O.C.S.O. Act & 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act registered at Police Station- Pisawan, DistrictSitapur.

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 13.08.2028 against five persons, including the applicant, stating that the informant's daughter had gone out of her house at about 11:30 PM on 12.08.2023 for attending the call of nature. The applicant and co-accused Farooq (the applicant's brother-in-law) caught hold of her. Co-accused Safi Raza (the applicant's father) threatened her with a gun. A lady residing in neighborhood had seen this incident and told it to the informant whereupon a search was carried out and the informant's daughter was found hanging from a tree at about 02:00 AM. Some blood was found on the soil.

¶10

The inquest report does not make any mention of blood having been found on the spot. The inquest report further

¶11

mentions no visible injury except for a ligature mark. The postmortem examination report mentions a ligature mark around neck of the dead body which was interrupted by 07.5 cm. No other injury has been reported on any other part of the dead body and cause of death was opined to be Asphyxia due to antimortem hanging.

¶12

The lady, who had allegedly seen the applicant and coaccused persons taking away the victim, stated before the Investigating Officer that she had seen the victim going away with a container carrying water and she thought that the victim was going to attend the call of nature and she slept. She did not state that she had seen the accused persons taking her away while threatening her with a gun.

¶13

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is a young man aged 24 years, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶14

Co-accused persons Safi Raza, Lateeq alias Laheek and Farooq @ Sharukh have already been granted bail in the present case and copies of their bail orders have been annexed with the bail application.

¶15

Learned A.G.A.-I has vehemently opposed the bail application and she has submitted that a minor girl aged 15 years has been killed in the incident, the offence is heinous in nature and the allegations have been found to be established during investigation and a charge-sheet has been submitted on 26.09.2023 and, therefore, the applicant should not entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of

¶17

the case and keeping in view the fact that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. that the applicant and two co-accused persons had taken away the victim after threatening her with a gun and this was witnessed by a lady, could not be established during investigation; that the FIR alleges that blood was found on the spot of occurrence which allegation was also not supported by the findings of the inquest report or any other material collected during investigation and that three coaccused persons have already been granted bail whereas the applicant has no criminal history, he is languishing in jail since 13.08.2023 and the investigation already stands completed, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶18

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant- Shadab be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶20

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶21

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶22

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶23

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶24

Order Date :- 1.4.2025 -Amit K-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shadab v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shadab v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

Master Shrihan Thru. His Mother Dr. Shilpy Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Ajeet Kumar Gupta @ Ajeet Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

C/M, U.P. Prathamik Shikshak Sangh, Lko. Thru. General Secy. Uma Shankar Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. and Institutional Finance and Others

Shikha Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Faiz @ Faiz Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home Lko.

Mohd.Sarim Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others