Allowed

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

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2025BAIL/4505/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application for an applicant charged with Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and POCSO offences; counsel argued consent and near-adult age per ossification test. Court relied on Supreme Court precedents on bail principles and allowed bail without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Sani to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, verified before release, subject to stated conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39146

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4505 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sani Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised. Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 2.2.2025.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri S.D. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 613 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Dibiyapur, District Auraiya, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is the consenting party, as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., whereby she has stated that she was pregnant and had gone with the applicant all the way to Rajasthan and established corporeal relationship with him and had married him. The victim is living in the house of the applicant. The victim is 17-18 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. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant is ready to take care of his wedded wife and the baby in her womb.

¶10

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 4.12.2024. 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 but has not disputed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

The Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785 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.

¶13

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 .

¶14

Let the applicant- Sani, 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.

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 19.3.2025 Shalini

¶20

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lal Singh Sen Alias Jeevan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sunny vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Kumar vs State of U.P.

Jogendra Alias Jugnu vs State of U.P.

Vipin vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohit Bhati vs State of U.P. and 3 Others