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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted to applicant Mohd Kadir: release upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned (sureties to be verified before the release order), subject to conditions of non-tampering with evidence, non-intimidation of prosecution witnesses, and attendance before the trial court on fixed dates, breach of any condition being a ground for cancellation.

Issue for consideration

Whether bail should be granted to applicant Mohd Kadir in Case Crime No. 322 of 2024 (Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) of BNS; Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act; Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act; P.S. Khudaganj, District Shahjahanpur) during the pendency of trial.

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, the submissions of counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and the settled Supreme Court law relied upon (Satender Kumar Antil, 2022 INSC 690; Manish Sisodia, 2024 INSC 595), and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and allowed the bail application.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant Mohd Kadir 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, with the sureties to be verified before issuance of the release order.

Key takeaways

Release is subject to conditions: (i) the applicant will not tamper with evidence during trial; (ii) he will not pressurise/intimidate prosecution witnesses; (iii) he will appear before the trial court on dates fixed; breach of any condition shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.ratio¶¶19
The observations made while granting bail shall not in any way affect the trial judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.obiter¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — Allahabad High Court (Court No. 65), Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:42914; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7214 of 2025; Order Date 24.3.2025. Applicant Mohd Kadir, in custody since 03.11.2024, sought bail in Case Crime No. 322 of 2024, P.S. Khudaganj, District Shahjahanpur, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) of BNS, Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, during pendency of trial. Counsel argued innocence/false implication; that the victim's statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS allayed no allegation of rape and that, though the ossification test reported her age as 15 years, she seemed major by looks; that no medical evidence corroborated the prosecution story; and that the applicant had no criminal history. The learned State Law Officer opposed the application but could not dispute the submissions or the absence of criminal history. Notice to the informant had been served on 21.02.2025, but none appeared for the informant. Taking into consideration the settled Supreme Court law in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI (2022 INSC 690) and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 INSC 595), and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court allowed bail: release on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount (sureties to be verified before the release order), subject to conditions — (i) not tampering with evidence during trial; (ii) not pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; (iii) appearing before the trial court on dates fixed — breach of any condition being a ground for cancellation. The Court made clear its observations would not affect the trial judge's independent opinion based on witness testimony.