Allowed

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

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2025BAIL/8495/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under BNS Sections 351(2), 64(2)(m) and POCSO Sections 5(L)/6 for an accused charged with rape of a minor, with delayed FIR alleged due to enmity. Court found no exceptional circumstances to deny bail and released the applicant on bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence and appearing before Trial Court on fixed dates.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52644

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8495 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sajid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sayeed Saif Ullah,Sufia Saba Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 08.03.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant.

¶8

Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶9

Heard Sri Sayeed Saif Ullah, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Ms. Ifra Islam, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material available on record.

¶10

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 019 of 2025, under Sections 351(2), 64(2)(m) of B.N.S. and Sections 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Chilkana, District - Saharanpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶11

PROSECUTION STORY:

¶12

The applicant is stated to have committed rape with the victim for about one month and had threatened her, as such, she did not reveal it to anybody. After getting the knowledge of the said incident from the victim, the informant, who happens to be her guardian had instituted an FIR on 01.09.2023.

¶13

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

¶14

The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR.

¶15

The FIR is delayed by about three and a half months and there is

¶16

no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶17

There is no medical corroboration of the incident.

¶18

The instant FIR is due to the enmity of the informant with the applicant as he had earlier also have got instituted an FIR against the applicant i.e. Case Crime No.283 of 2016 at the same police station. The applicant is on bail in the said case and except this, there are no other criminal antecedents of the applicant. .

¶19

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.

¶20

The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.01.2025, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

¶21

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE BY STATE LAW OFFICER:

¶22

The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶23

CONCLUSION:

¶24

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 , the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶25

In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground of criminal antecedent.

¶26

The well-known principle of " Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty, " gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

¶27

A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 .

¶28

Reiterating the aforesaid view, the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 , has again emphasized that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that " bail is a rule and jail is an exception ".

¶29

Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶30

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned State Law Officer.

¶31

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, 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 .

¶32

Let the applicant- Sajid , 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.

¶33

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶34

(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 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.

¶35

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

¶36

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.

¶37

Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Priya

¶38

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶39

Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajid 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

Zaid vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Udaybhan Rajpoot Alias Shiva Bhanne vs State of U.P.

Sachin S/O Hariom vs State of U.P. through Its Secretary Home, Govt. of U.P. at Lucknow & 3 Others

Furqan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ravi Kashyap vs State of U.P.

Lullar Alias Shubham Pandey Alias Surendra Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. and 3 Others