Sufiyan @ Amit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

Sufiyan @ Amit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted to applicant Sufiyan @ Amit in Case Crime No. 398 of 2025 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence; no pressurizing/intimidating prosecution witnesses; appearance before the trial court on dates fixed); sureties to be verified before the release order is issued.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Sufiyan @ Amit, is entitled to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 398 of 2025 (Sections 140(4), 351(2) B.N.S., Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, 4/25 Arms Act, P.S. Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr) during the pendency of trial.

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, submissions of counsel, the evidence on record, the five-day delay in institution of the FIR and the absence of medical corroboration of the incident, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held _prima facie_ that the applicant had made out a case for bail.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions; the sureties were to be verified before issuance of the release order.

Key takeaways

Bail conditions imposed: the applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial, shall not pressurize/intimidate prosecution witnesses, and shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed; breach of any condition shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.ratio¶19
It was made clear that the observations made in granting bail shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Krishan Pahal, J.) allowed the bail application of Sufiyan @ Amit in Case Crime No. 398 of 2025, P.S. Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr, arising under Sections 140(4), 351(2) B.N.S., Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act and 4/25 Arms Act. Taking into account the five-day delay in institution of the FIR and the absence of medical corroboration of the incident, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held _prima facie_ that a case for bail was made out. The applicant, in custody since 02.06.2025, was ordered released on a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and pressurizing/intimidating prosecution witnesses and an undertaking to appear before the trial court; breach of any condition was made a ground for cancellation of bail. Observations were expressly confined so as not to affect the trial Judge's independent assessment of witness testimony.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32186 of 2025

Sufiyan @ Amit

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. And 3 Others		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Amir Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

Court No. - 67

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

List has been revised. Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 18.8.2025.

Heard Sri Amir Khan, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.398 of 2025, under Sections 140(4), 351(2) B.N.S., Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act and 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Sikandrabad, District- Bulandshahr, during the pendency of trial.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about five days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Although the victim is stated to have been subjected to unnatural offence by the applicant, but there is no medical corroboration of the incident either.

It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 2.6.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay of five days in institution of FIR and there being no

BAIL No. 32186 of 2025

2

medical corroboration of the incident, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie , the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

Let the applicant- Sufiyan @ Amit , 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.

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

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.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

September 19, 2025

Vikas Verma

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