Mahil vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61887

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9620 of 2025

Applicant :- Mahil Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

As informed by learned AGA, notice to the informant has been served on 18.03.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant even in the revised call.

¶7

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

¶8

Heard Sri Amit Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Varun Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 502 of 2024, under Section 65(1) of BNS and Sections 5k/5n/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Mundha Pandey, District - Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim has been examined during trial as PW-1 and she has completely resiled from her earlier statements and has been cross-examined by the public prosecutor after declaring her hostile. There is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the present case.

¶11

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. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.10.2024 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

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail

¶13

application but could not dispute the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant and the victim has turned hostile.

¶14

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.

¶15

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 .

¶16

Let the applicant- Mahil , 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.

¶17

i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶18

iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date:- 23.4.2025 Siddhant

¶22

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahil 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

Kuldeep Kumar Chauhan vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Yadav Alias Bauna vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Riyazul vs State of U.P.

Moh Kamran vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Saad Ali Kha vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kapil vs State of U.P.