Hamid Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:34685

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6152 of 2025

Applicant :- Hamid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Girish Chandra Maurya,Kunwar Abhishek Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Kunwar Abhishek, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer as well as perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Learned State Law Officer has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 14.02.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 486 of 2024, under Sections 351(2), 61(2), 65(1) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4(2) of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to be involved in the business of exorcism. The applicant is stated to have taken the victim inside the room and committed aggravated sexual assault with her on 15.07.2024 at about 2:30 p.m.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about 2 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no medical corroboration of the said incident, as such it is a clear cut case of false implication. As per ossification test report also, age of the victim has come up to be 15-16 years and a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side.

¶12

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the

¶13

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.

¶14

There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.07.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶16

As per ossification test report, the age of the victim is 15 to 16 years and a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side in the light of the judgement of Supreme Court passed 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 , whereby it has been opined that the radiologist cannot be predict the correct date of birth rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side .

¶17

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.

¶18

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 .

¶19

Let the applicant- Hamid , 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.

¶20

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶21

(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. 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.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Sumit S

¶25

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hamid 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