Allowed¶16

Gulshan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2025BAIL/4081/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; bail allowed; Gulshan; Case Crime No. 627 of 2024; PS Naini, Prayagraj; Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2) B.N.S.; 5/6 POCSO Act; 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act; ossification test age margin 1-2 years; Jaya Mala (1982) 2 SCC 538; Mohd. Imran Khan (2011) 10 SCC 192; Niranjan Singh AIR 1980 SC 785; Satender Kumar Antil 2022 INSC 690; Manish Sisodia 2024 INSC 595; custody since 9.11.2024; personal bond two sureties; Krishan Pahal; order dated 17.4.2025.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted to applicant Gulshan on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with sureties to be verified before the release order, subject to conditions of non-tampering with evidence and presence before the Trial Court at prescribed stages; breach to be a ground for cancellation.

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Gulshan, in custody since 9.11.2024, is entitled to regular bail in Case Crime No. 627 of 2024 (Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2) B.N.S.; 5/6 POCSO Act; 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, P.S. Naini, Prayagraj) during the pendency of trial. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, submissions of counsel, evidence on record, and the settled law of the Supreme Court (Satender Kumar Antil; Manish Sisodia), 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.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The applicant Gulshan 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 the stated conditions, with sureties verified before issuance of the release order.

¶16

Key takeaways

Condition of bail: the applicant shall not tamper with evidence.ratio¶17
Condition of bail: the applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S.; deliberate or unjustified absence may be treated by the Trial Court as abuse of the liberty of bail and proceeded against in accordance with law.ratio¶18
Breach of any of the bail conditions shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Krishan Pahal, J.; order dated 17.4.2025) allowed bail to applicant Gulshan in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4081 of 2025 arising from Case Crime No. 627 of 2024 (Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2) B.N.S., Sections 5/6 POCSO Act and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, P.S. Naini, District Prayagraj). Counsel urged innocence, absence of criminal antecedent, custody since 9.11.2024, and that the victim (stated 16 years per ossification test report) appears major; the Court recalled, through Jaya Mala (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Mohd. Imran Khan (2011) 10 SCC 192, that a radiologist cannot predict the correct date of birth and there is a margin of 1 to 2 years on either side, and, per Niranjan Singh (AIR 1980 SC 785), confined itself to prima facie satisfaction without detailed examination of evidence or elaborate documentation of merits. Taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (2022 INSC 690) and Manish Sisodia (2024 INSC 595), and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the bail application was allowed: release on a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount (sureties verified before release order), conditioned on non-tampering with evidence and personal presence before the Trial Court at opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S., deliberate default being actionable as abuse of bail; breach of conditions a ground for cancellation; observations in the order not to affect the trial Judge's independent opinion.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56742

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4081 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Gulshan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record. He has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 4.2.2025.

¶8

Heard Sri Satish Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.627 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2) B.N.S., 5/6 POCSO Act and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Naini, District- Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim has not levelled any allegations against the applicant in her statement recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S. The victim by her looks seems to be major, although she is stated to be 16 years old as per the ossification test report, as such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 9.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶12

The Supreme Court in Jaya Mala vs. State of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192 has opined that the radiologist cannot

¶13

predict the correct date of birth rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side.

¶14

In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

¶15

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 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 .

¶16

Let the applicant- Gulshan , 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.

¶17

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 17.4.2025/ Vikas

¶22

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶23

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

Gulshan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulshan v. State of U.P. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rohit Kumar vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar Alias Raju vs State of U.P.

Shahzade vs State of U.P.

Umashankar Dharkar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rinku vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sikandra vs State of U.P. and 3 Others