Arbaz Khan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:46765

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8618 of 2025

Applicant :- Arbaz Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Patel,Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

In compliance of earlier order of this Court, the ossification test report of the victim has been received, which reveals the medical age of the victim to be 16 years.

¶8

Learned State Law Officer has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 6.3.2025.

¶9

Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶10

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.118 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 328, 342, 376(3), 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Puranderpur, District- Maharajganj, during the pendency of trial.

¶11

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 a consenting party as she had travelled to several places alongwith the applicant and had not raised any alarm whatsoever. The victim by her looks seems to be major, although as per the ossification test report her age has come out to be 16 years, as such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.5.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail

¶13

application.

¶14

The Supreme Court 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 has opined that the radiologist cannot predict the correct date of birth rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side.

¶15

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.

¶16

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 .

¶17

Let the applicant- Arbaz Khan , 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.

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

witnesses.

¶23

The original ossification test report shall be returned to the office of CMO concerned, after retaining photostat copy of the same on record.

¶24

Order Date :- 3.4.2025 Vikas

¶25

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arbaz Khan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arbaz Khan 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

Jitendra vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raju vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Adil vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Islam Alias Samiullah vs State of U.P.

Kanhaiya vs State of U.P through Principal Secretary Home Gov. of U.P at Lucknow and 3 Others