Mohd Imran vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

Mohd Imran vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second bail application allowed; applicant Mohd Imran 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 verification of sureties and conditions of no tampering with evidence, no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses, and appearance before the trial court on fixed dates; breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, whose first bail application was rejected on 8.5.2025, deserves release on bail in Case Crime No. 352 of 2024 during the pendency of trial, in light of the victim having turned hostile and the absence of criminal history.

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, submissions of counsel, the evidence on record, the settled law of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil and Manish Sisodia, and the fact that the victim herself has turned hostile, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held that the applicant has made out a case for bail and allowed the bail application.

Ratio / Principle

Applicant Mohd Imran is 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 that he will not tamper with evidence, will not pressurise/intimidate prosecution witnesses, and will appear before the trial court on dates fixed; sureties to be verified before issuance of the release order; breach of conditions shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Key takeaways

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.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.) allowed a second bail application in Case Crime No. 352 of 2024 (Sections 64(1), 115(2), 351(2), 352, 69, 65(1) BNS; Sections 3/4(2) POCSO Act; Sections 66(E), 67, 67(A), 67-B I.T. Act; Police Station Nauchandi, District Meerut), the applicant's first bail application having been rejected on 8.5.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11371 of 2025. Bail was granted because the informant/victim, examined during trial as PW-1, had completely resiled from her earlier statements and been declared hostile, the applicant had no criminal history and was in jail since 29.11.2024, and the A.G.A. did not dispute these facts. The Court acted on the settled law in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595, expressly without expressing any opinion on merits. Release ordered on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, with conditions against tampering with evidence and intimidating witnesses and an undertaking to appear before the trial court; breach cancellable; observations not to affect the trial Judge's independent opinion.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35323 of 2025

Mohd Imran

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Dinesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 67

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

List has been revised.

Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 352 of 2024, under Sections 64(1), 115(2), 351(2), 352, 69, 65(1) of BNS, Sections 3/4(2) of POCSO Act and Sections 66(E), 67, 67(A), 67-B of I.T. Act, Police Station - Nauchandi, District - Meerut, during the pendency of trial.

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 8.5.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11371 of 2025.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The informant/victim has been examined during trial as PW-1 and she has completely resiled from her earlier statements and has been cross-examined by the public prosecutor after declaring her hostile. There is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the present case.

Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 29.11.2024, having no criminal history to his credit and deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

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

BAIL No. 35323 of 2025

2

but could not dispute the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant and the victim herself has turned hostile.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and also the fact that the victim herself has turned hostile, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

Let the applicant- Mohd Imran , 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

iii) The applicant will 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.

October 30, 2025 Siddhant

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad