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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release of accused-applicant Haider on bail in Case Crime No. 87 of 2025 upon execution of a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to four conditions: (1) not tampering with evidence; (2) not indulging in criminal activity; (3) not pressurizing/intimidating prosecution witnesses and cooperating in the trial; (4) regular appearance on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted through counsel. Breach of any condition entitles the court below to cancel the bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused-applicant Haider should be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 87 of 2025 (Sections 351(3) B.N.S.; Sections 16/17 POCSO Act), Police Station Kotwali, District Aligarh.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, the severity of punishment in the case of conviction, the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses and the prima facie case, but expressly without commenting on the merit of the case, the Court found that a case for bail is made out for the applicant.

Key takeaways

The bail application is allowed: accused-applicant Haider is to be released on bail on executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to four conditions (not tampering with evidence; not indulging in criminal activity; not pressurizing/intimidating prosecution witnesses and cooperating in the trial; appearing regularly on each date fixed by the trial court unless exempted); on breach of any condition the court below is at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36361 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Court No. 68), decided 31 October 2025 by Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava, J.: bail ALLOWED for accused-applicant Haider in Case Crime No. 87 of 2025, under Sections 351(3) of the B.N.S. and Section 16/17 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Aligarh, versus State of U.P. and 3 Others. Counsel for the applicant (Srijan Pandey) submitted that the applicant was innocent and falsely implicated; the FIR was registered with delay for which no satisfactory explanation was offered; the applicant's case was distinguishable from co-accused Pappu; no incriminating material (video of the victim) had been recovered from the applicant or the co-accused; there was no independent witness and there were variations in witness statements recorded by the Investigating Officer; the charge-sheet had been filed and the applicant was not needed for custodial interrogation; the victim in her statement had said nothing wrong had been done with her by the applicant; no specific role or motive had been assigned to the applicant; he was in jail since 29.05.2025, had no criminal antecedents, and was unlikely to flee or tamper with evidence. Counsel for the AGA (Sri Yagvalkya Pandey) opposed but could not dispute these points. Weighing the nature of accusations, severity of punishment on conviction, supporting evidence, apprehension of tampering and the prima facie case, without commenting on merits, the Court held a case for bail was made out and directed release on a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount, subject to four conditions (no tampering with evidence; no criminal activity; no pressure/intimidation of witnesses and cooperation in trial; regular trial-court attendance unless exempted), breach permitting the court below to cancel the bail.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36361 of 2025

Haider

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Srijan Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 68

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yagvalkya Pandey, learned AGA for the State-Respondent and perused the record.

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 87 of 2025, under Sections 351(3) of the B.N.S. and Section 16/17 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Aligarh.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case crime number. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the FIR has been registered with some delay of which no satisfactory explanation has been submitted. He submits that the case of the applicant is distinguishable from the co-accused Pappu. He further submits that no incriminating material alleged i.e. video of the victim has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or from the co-accused, which establishes the falsity of the prosecution case. He submits that there is no independent witness of the alleged incident. He submits that here is variation in the statement of the witness recorded by the Investigating Officer, which belies the prosecution story. He submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant is not required for any custodial interrogation. The victim in her statement has said that nothing wrong has been done with her by the applicant. He submits that no specific role and motive has been assigned to the applicant in the present case. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.05.2025. The applicant has no criminal antecedent and there is no

BAIL No. 36361 of 2025

2

likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, the bail has been prayed for.

Learned counsel for the AGA has vehemently opposed, but could not dispute the aforesaid fact raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

Considering all those facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and primafacie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Let the accused-applicant, Haider, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

October 31, 2025 pks

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :- PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad