Sabir vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40674 of 2025

Sabir	.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Umair Pandey	Mahmood, Vivek
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No.- 65

¶3

HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Chandan Singh the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire material available on record.

¶5

The applicant- Sabir has filed the instant bail application with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Crime No. 132 of 2002, under Section 376 I.P.C., Police Station Rajpura, District Sambhal, during the pendency of the trial.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that initially N.C.R. was lodged on 29.06.2002 under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. thereafter Section 325 I.P.C. has been added and case was registered as Case Crime No. 132 of 2002 under Sections 323, 504, 325 I.P.C., during the course of investigation, the subsequent statement ( Majeed Bayan ) of the victim was recorded wherein she has levelled of rape upon the applicant and his brother (co-accused). Learned counsel further argued that after investigation charge sheet was filed under Sections 323, 325, 504 I.P. C. Thereafter trial was commenced as Case No. 1059 of 2007 in which the statement of the victim/informant was recorded as P.W.1, Afsar Ali P.W.2, victim's daughter as P.W.3. Upon such statements, State filed

¶7

BAIL No. 40674 of 2025

¶8

2

¶9

an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. stating therein that considering the statements, as well as medical evidence, offence under Section 376 I.P.C., is made out against the applicant as such, the accused-applicant be summoned, which applicant has been allowed vide order dated 24.06.2016. Learned counsel further argued merely on the basis of the statements, the applicant has been summoned to face trial under Section 376 I.P.C. Learned counsel further argued that the victim only to make out a case and to exert pressure to fulfill her illegal demand has levelled against applicant with regard to alleged offence when in fact no offence under the charge Sections is made out against the applicant. Learned counsel also argued that due to village parti bandi, the applicant has been victimised of false accusation since it is not believable that the applicant would commit rape along with brother and therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail. 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 29.09.2025.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State has contended that there is specific allegation against the applicant. He next submits that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.

¶11

Perusal of the record shows that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has levelled specific allegation of rape against the applicant. Apart from the same, the victim before the trial Court has also reiterated the version

¶12

BAIL No. 40674 of 2025

¶13

3

¶14

of commission of rape by the applicant. Thereafter, on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the applicant has been summoned to face trial under Section 376 IPC, vide order dated 24.06.2016. Against which order, revision was filed by the applicant along with co-accused before the Sessions Court, that too has been rejected long back i.e. on 16.09.2016. The accused-applicant as well as co-accused filed a petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order 16.09.2016, which has been disposed of with the liberty to the applicant to file recall application. The co-accused Yaseen Khan filed a recall application which was also rejected, which averments has been stated in paragraph no.20 of the affidavit accompanying the bail application. It has also been stated in paragraph no.23 of the affidavit that the applicant's local counsel informed him that a recall application has been filed by the co-accused Yaseen Khan on behalf of the applicant and other co-accused, which is still pending and the applicant went to Mumbai for his livelihood. When he came back in the year 2024, his local counsel intimated him that his recall application has been rejected, thereafter, the applicant and coaccused filed a discharge application, which too has been rejected against which order, the applicant and co-accused Bhura had approached this Court by means of filing Criminal Revision no. 2836 of 2025, which has been dismissed as withdrawn however liberty was granted to the applicant to appear before the trial and file an application for bail within a period of three weeks from the date of order i.e. 08.07.2025. This Court takes note of the fact, that recall application dated 10.11.2016 has not been annexed to demonstrate whether the applicant was also a party in the recall application alongwith co-accused Yaseen or not and no disclosure of the date of rejection of the recall application has been made in the entire pleadings, in spite of the specific averments in paragraph no.23 that his counsel was regularly informing the applicant about the progress of the case but it was in the year 2024, when the applicant came back to his village, he was informed about

¶15

BAIL No. 40674 of 2025

¶16

4

¶17

rejection of the recall application. Mere pendency of the recall application without there being any interim protection, does not give liberty to the applicant to leave the district and therefore, the ground that the applicant had gone to Mumbai is not good enough as may sufficiently explain the delay of eight years i.e. from 2016 to 2024. Thus it is apparent that the applicant had not participated in the proceedings for 08 years, deliberately. Apart from the aforesaid, the applicant filed discharge application that too, has been rejected by the Sessions Court on 30.04.2025 against that order, criminal revision no. 2836 of 2025 has been rejected on 08.07.2025.

¶18

6. Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajwar Vs. Waseem and another, 2024 (10) SCC 768 has held in paragraph no.26 as under:-

¶19

26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider the relevant factors like the nature of accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. (Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. and Another (2004) 7 SCC 525; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Another(supra); Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2009) 14 SCC 286; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another (2010) 14 SCC 496; Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2014)16 SCC 508; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (2018) 12 SCC 129; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia and Another(supra).

¶20

BAIL No. 40674 of 2025

¶21

5

¶22

In the instant case, non-bailable-warrant is running against the applicant since 2016 till date, though in the meantime, due recourse of law has been adopted by the applicant in which, no interim protection was granted to the applicant as such it is apparent that the applicant is avoiding the proceedings and evading the Courts of justice. Therefore, the conduct of the applicant is evident that he is misusing the process of law and Court on one pretext or the other. The case was registered in the year 2002 pursuant to which, the trial commenced in the year 2007 and the non-bailable warrant is running against the applicant since 2016 to 2025 as is also evident from the perusal of the order sheets of the case, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-14 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application.

¶23

Keeping in view the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, gravity of offence, nature of allegations and all the attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused-applicant.

¶24

Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected .

¶25

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)

¶26

November 26, 2025

¶27

S.Ali

¶28

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

Sabir v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabir v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vahidujjma Ansari Alias Poonak Ansari vs State of U.P.

Sonu vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sumit Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amit Yadav Alias Gulshan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shiv Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pankaj @ Pushpendra vs State of U.P.