Dismissed¶¶15

Nepali Urf Imran v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2025BAIL/5859/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5859 of 2025; Samit Gopal, J.; bail rejected; Section 483 BNSS 2023; Case Crime No. 608 of 2024; Sections 65(2), 351(2) BNSS; Section 5(m)/6 POCSO Act; PS Iglas, District Aligarh; FIR dated 12.11.2024 by Sheruddin; victim girl aged about 6 years; applicant named in FIR and victim's statements; no ground for false implication; applicant in jail since 12.11.2024; no criminal history.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is named in the first information report and in the statements of the victim recorded during investigation. ¶¶14

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:38369

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5859 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Nepali Urf Imran Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Sharan Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Shiv Sharan Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant Nepali Urf Imran , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.608 of 2024, under Sections 65(2), 351(2) B.N.S.S. and Section 5(m)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Iglas, District Aligarh.

¶9

At the very outset, learned counsel for the State submits that as per his instruction, notice has been served on the first informant. Despite service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the first informant.

¶10

The first information report of the matter was lodged on 12.11.2024 by Sheruddin against the applicant alleging therein that on 11.11.2024 at about 7:30 p.m., the applicant allured his daughter aged about 6 years and took off her cloths and enraged her modesty. On her shouting, his wife Ameena went there and found his daughter to be crying. The applicant then tried to run

¶11

away from there.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim was not found to have received any external injury even on her body and there was no complaint of pain and thus no opinion was formed by the doctor. It is submitted that although, in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., there is no overt act mentioned but in statement record under Section 183 B.N.S.S of the victim, she states that the applicant took off his clothes and her clothes also and did wrongful act. It is further submitted that the same would thus not travel to the extent of rape but would only be an act of enraging her modesty. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 4 of the affidavit and is in jail since 12.11.2024.

¶13

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there are allegation against him. It is submitted that the victim is aged about 6 years and has named the applicant. It is submitted that the bail application of the applicant be rejected.

¶14

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report, the statements of the victim recorded during investigation, he is named there. The victim is aged about 6 years. No such ground for false implication exists.

¶15

The bail application at this stage stands rejected .

¶16

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 18.3.2025 Manoj

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nepali Urf Imran v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nepali Urf Imran v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rani Devi vs State of U.P.

Rajjo Alias Manjoo vs State of U.P.

Bhagat Sahani @ Bhabhuti Sahani vs State of U.P.

Raghvendra Singh vs State of U.P.

Viresh vs State of U.P.

Mahesh @ Aryan vs State of U.P.