Anil vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13657 of 2025

Versus Anil .....Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ishwar Chandra Tyagi, Ram Charan Lal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶3

Court No. - 65

¶4

HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

¶5

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

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the initially F.I.R. was lodged under Section 354(Ka) I.P.C., and Section 10 of POCSO Act and during the course of investigation, Section 376AB I.P.C., and Section 5(m)/6 of POCSO was incorporated dropping the earlier Sections. Learned counsel has further contended that though the victim is aged about 3-4 years, the alleged incident had taken place on 28.02.2022 and that the F.I.R. was lodged on the same day. He further submits that perusal of the supplementary medico legal report of the victim dated 28.02.2022 goes to show that no spermatozoa alive or dead seen in the slide and it has been finally opined that no opinion can be given about sexual assault/violence. Learned counsel thus argued that the medical evidence does not corroborate with the prosecution version. Learned counsel has contended that earlier there was an allegation against the applicant that the applicant had stabbed the the Jethani of mother of the victim, which was commenced as Sessions Trial No. 899 of 2011 (State Vs. Vijay alilas Kalia and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 1515 of 2011 under Sections 302/34 I.P.C., in which case, the applicant was acquitted vide acquittal order dated 29.01.2016, copy of which Judgement and order is annexed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application. Learned counsel has next argued that since then the informant had grudge against the applicant and in a fit of rage, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel

¶7

BAIL No. 13657 of 2025

¶8

2

¶9

has next argued that though the trial of the present case has commenced being Sessions Trial No. 104 of 2022 (State Vs. Anil) in which, charges were framed long back on 18.05.2022 and till date only one witness has been examined. Learned counsel next argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 02.03.2022 and that the trial is progressing at a slow pace, which is not likely to be concluded in near future and has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Indrani Pratim Mukerjea Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1627 of 2022 to submit that prolonged incarceration of a person as an under trial is against his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that there is no occasion now for the applicant to tamper with any witness or to flee from judicial process. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.

¶11

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view, that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Let applicant Anil involved in Case Crime No.197 of 2022 under Sections 376AB I.P.C., and Section 5(m)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local heavy sureties each of the like amount to the

¶13

BAIL No. 13657 of 2025

¶14

3

¶15

satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶16

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶17

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶18

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶19

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶20

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

¶22

The bail application is allowed.

¶23

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)

¶24

March 19, 2026

¶25

S.Ali

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil 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

Gagan Singh Thapa Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kallu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mayank Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Atif and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mayank Chauhan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manish Sharma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others