Mohd Abid vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Learned A.G.A. on the basis of instructions submits that notice of the present application has been served upon the informant- opposite party no. 2 and upon the Child Welfare Committee, Ghaziabad- opposite party no. 3 on 30.11.2025. The copies of the receiving endorsements as produced by learned A.G.A. are taken on record. However, no one appears on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 nor any counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf.

¶10

Heard Sri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ramesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Shashank Shekhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶11

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 85 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 64, 351(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Khoda, District Ghaziabad during the pendency of the trial.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The name of the applicant was disclosed by the victim in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. As per the statement of the victim under Section 180 B.N.S.S. she stayed with the applicant for couple of days as husband and wife and established relations with him. However, the victim in her statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. stated an exaggerated version. It is contended that the said statement has been made to aggravate the offence and save the failing prosecution case. The material

¶13

BAIL No. 43325 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

inconsistencies in the statements of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. discredit the prosecution case. The victim, in fact, is a major. No ossification test was got conducted by the police authorities. As per the certificate issued by the school authorities, the victim was aged 17 years and 6 months. It is contended that the age of the victim was incorrectly got registered in the school records by the parents to give her advantage in life. There is no lawful basis for the age related entry of the victim in the school records. The school records disclosing her age 17 years and 6 months are unreliable. The victim is not minor. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 12.03.2025 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant was disclosed by the victim in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. As per the statement of the victim under Section 180 B.N.S.S. she stayed with the applicant for couple of days as husband and wife and established relations with him. The material inconsistencies in the statements of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. discredit the prosecution case. No ossification test was got conducted by the police authorities. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost nine months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶18

Let the applicant- Mohd. Abid, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶19

BAIL No. 43325 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21