Dismissed¶¶16

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

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2025CRLA/10187/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Faraz v. State of U.P. & 3 Ors., Allahabad High Court Criminal Appeal No. 10187 of 2024, decided 5.4.2025 (2025:AHC:57268), Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.: appeal u/s 14-A(2) SC/ST Act against bail rejection DISMISSED; bail refused in minor-victim kidnap/rape case (Sections 363, 376 IPC; 3/4 POCSO Act; 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act), case crime 144/2024, P.S. Kundarki, Moradabad; chargesheet filed, seriousness and gravity of offence stressed; s.161/s.164 CrPC statements conflict on victim's age (approx. 22 vs approx. 15 years); appellant claimed consensual relationship, marriage (27.5.2024) and no criminal antecedents (custody since 1.7.2024); State cited school-register DOB 1.1.2009, enticement, pregnancy and delivery of a child.

What did the court decide?

None — bail refused; impugned bail-rejection order affirmed. ¶¶16

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — bail refused; impugned bail-rejection order affirmed.

¶¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal should be allowed, the bail-rejection order dated 29.8.2024 set aside, and the appellant released on bail in case crime no. 144 of 2024. +1 more

¶¶7

Court's answer

The order rejecting bail passed by the court concerned on 29.8.2024 is affirmed and no ground is made out to release the accused-appellant on bail.

¶¶15

Ratio / Principle

Taking into account the facts and circumstances, the sufficiency of materials collected during investigation and the submitted chargesheet, and the seriousness and gravity of the offence, the court found it is not a fit case for bail.

¶¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.; order dated 5.4.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:57268), Criminal Appeal No. 10187 of 2024 under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act by Faraz against rejection of his bail application (order dt. 29.8.2024, Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.1, Moradabad) in case crime no. 144 of 2024, P.S. Kundarki, Dist. Moradabad, under Sections 363, 376 IPC, Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act. Prosecution narrative: the informant's minor daughter went missing on 25.4.2024 while accompanying Pooja wife of Satpal to fetch medicine; chargesheet subsequently filed. Appellant's contentions: not named in the F.I.R. (lodged 10.5.2024, occurrence 25.4.2024, delay unexplained); victim not recovered from his possession; no independent witness; victim returned home herself; her s.161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded her age as about 22 years, described leaving home of her own free will on 16.4.2024, marriage between the two on 27.5.2024, pregnancy and desire to live with him; her s.164 Cr.P.C. statement put her age at about 15 years and described introduction by co-accused Pooja and consensual relations; ultrasound report showed nothing significant; material contradictions among the F.I.R. and the two statements; custody since 1.7.2024 with no criminal antecedents. Informant/State opposition: school register shows victim's date of birth as 1.1.2009 (minor on 25.4.2024, consent legally valueless even if given); she was enticed away, physical relations caused pregnancy and she has since delivered a child; appellant acted knowing her minority and S.C./S.T. community membership; ample evidence collected by the I.O. and chargesheet submitted. Holding: considering the facts and circumstances, the sufficient materials gathered during investigation, the chargesheet and the seriousness and gravity of the offence, the court found it not a fit case for bail, affirmed the rejection order dated 29.8.2024, found no ground for release, and dismissed the appeal.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:57268

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10187 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Faraz Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Apsara,Mukul Yadav,Narendra Kumar,Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Meraj Ahmad Khan

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Second supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant and counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no.4 are taken on record.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Faraz with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 29.8.2024 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.1, Moradabad and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.144 of 2024 under Sections 363, 376 IPC, Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kundarki, District Moradabad.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

¶9

Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that the victim, the minor daughter of the informant, had gone to take medicine with Pooja wife of Satpal on 25.4.2024 at about 2:00 P.M., but she did not return home and the said Pooja also gave no plausible answer for the same. It was also found by the informant that her daughter often used to talk on mobile no.7535981722 from her mobile phone. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet in this matter.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. The prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is also submitted that the essential ingredient to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act are missing in this case. It is also submitted that the present appellant has absolutely no

¶11

concern with this matter. He was not named in the F.I.R. and as per prosecution case, the minor daughter of the informant left her house in the company of Pooja wife of Satpal and there is no mention of the name of the appellant in the F.I.R. of this case. It is also submitted that the victim has not been recovered from the possession of the appellant. The offence is said to be occurred on 25.4.2024, whereas F.I.R. in this matter was lodged on 10.5.2024 without any plausible explanation for the delay. It is also submitted that there is no independent witness of the occurrence and as per prosecution case, the victim came back to her house herself. In her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., she has told her age about 22 years and have made a specific statement that she had gone with the appellant out of her own free will on 16.4.2024 and subsequently both of them performed marriage with each other on 27.5.2024 and she also developed pregnancy and she wants to live with the present appellant. In the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that she is a minor girl aged about 15 years. She has further stated that the co-accused Pooja was the person who, for the first time, introduced the victim with Faraz on telephone and both of them met for the first time in the house of Pooja. She has further stated that this co-accused Pooja is involved in introducing the young persons with each other and is also engaged in the matters of leaving houses by the minor girls. She has also stated that on her own free will she had gone with the appellant and physical relations were developed between the two. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that it is a case of consensual relationship between the victim and the appellant. It is also submitted that in the ultrasound report of the victim, nothing significant was found. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. and the contents of the F.I.R. It is also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 1.7.2024 having no criminal antecedents to his credit. It is further submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the court concerned. It is further submitted that the court concerned while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶12

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant / respondent no.4 vehemently opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that there are ample evidence on record

¶13

that the victim was a minor girl on the date of occurrence. She was enticed away by the accused appellant, who developed physical relations with her and due to this, she developed pregnancy. It is also submitted that apart to the facts of the present case, the victim has delivered a child as well on account of physical relations made with the appellant. It is also submitted that in the school register, the date of birth of the victim is shown as 1.1.2009, whereas incident occurred on 25.4.2024. Hence she was minor at the time of occurrence and even if she has consented to go with the appellant, her consent has no value in the eyes of law. It is also submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim was a minor girl at the relevant point of time and belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. It is also submitted that it is not a case of consensual relationship. It is also submitted that the victim belonged to weaker section of the Society and ample evidence was collected by the I.O. against the present accused appellant and charge-sheet has been submitted against him. Active participation of the accused appellant in the commission of the crime is apparent. The appellant is not entitled for any relaxation and his bail application is liable to be rejected and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶15

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also that during investigation sufficient materials have been collected against the accused appellant by the I.O. of this case and chargesheet has been submitted in this matter and also keeping in view the seriousness and gravity of the offence, in my view it is not a fit case for bail. The order of rejection of bail passed by the court concerned dated 29.8.2024 is affirmed. No ground is made out to release the accused appellant on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed .

¶17

Order Date :- 5.4.2025

¶18

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faraz 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases