Allowed¶18

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

Allahabad HC5 May 2026BAIL/15191/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail allowed; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 15191 of 2026; Junaid v. State of U.P. and 3 others; Case Crime No. 348 of 2024; Sections 87, 70(2), 123 BNS; Sections 9(g)/10 POCSO Act; P.S. Crossing Republic, District Ghaziabad; delay in FIR of about two months; no medical corroboration; allegation of spiking cold drink and administering injections; victim's age stated to be 14 years; applicant in jail since 26.9.2024; personal bond and two sureties; decided May 6, 2026 by Krishan Pahal, J.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Junaid on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to verification of sureties, with conditions of not tampering with evidence, not intimidating witnesses, and appearing before the trial court as required. ¶18

Junaid Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Junaid, in custody since 26.9.2024, is entitled to bail in Case Crime No. 348 of 2024 under Sections 87, 70(2) and 123 BNS and 9(g)/10 POCSO Act, Police Station Crossing Republic, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶11

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the delay in FIR, there being no medical corroboration of the incident, and there being no evidence that the applicant spiked the cold drink or administered the victim some injections rendering her unconscious, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court held that the applicant has made out a case for bail and allowed the bail application.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The applicant Junaid is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required; breach of these conditions shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

Key takeaways

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.obiter¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Krishan Pahal, J.) allowed the bail application of Junaid in Case Crime No. 348 of 2024 under Sections 87, 70(2) and 123 BNS and 9(g)/10 POCSO Act, Police Station Crossing Republic, District Ghaziabad. Relying on the delay of about two months in the FIR, the absence of medical corroboration of the incident, and the absence of evidence that the applicant spiked the cold drink or administered injections rendering the victim unconscious, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held that a case for bail was made out. The applicant, in custody since 26.9.2024, was directed to be released on a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses and to appear before the trial court; breach was made a ground for cancellation. The Court clarified that its observations would not affect the trial Judge's independent opinion.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15191 of 2026

¶3

Junaid

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) :	Ranjeet Kumar Asthana
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 65

¶7

(Sl. No. 6 out of 259)

¶8

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶9

List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice to the informant has been served on 24.4.2026.

¶10

Heard Sri Ranjeet Kumar Asthana, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶11

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 348 of 2024, under Sections 87, 70(2) and 123 BNS and 9(g)/10 POCSO Act, Police Station Crossing Republic, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about two months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is nothing on record to prove that applicant spiked the cold drink or administered the victim some injections rendering her unconscious or incapable of resisting. It is a clear-cut case of false implication as there is no medical corroboration of the incident. The victim, by her physical appearance, seems to be major although her age is stated to be 14 years but there is no valid documentary evidence to suggest that she was minor.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since

¶14

BAIL No. 15191 of 2026

¶15

¶16

26.9.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in FIR; there being no medical corroboration of the incident; there being no evidence that applicant spiked the cold drink or administered the victim some injections rendering her unconscious 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 .

¶19

Let the applicant- Junaid, 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 verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.

¶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 witnesses.

¶22

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶23

May 6, 2026 Shalini

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Junaid 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

Anup Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Usman Vs State of U.P.

Kusum Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Pasi Vs State of U.P.

Govind @ Akash Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pushpendra Dev @ Talli vs State of U.P. and 3 Others