Dismissed¶15

Shahjad Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bail – rejection

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2026BAIL/26148/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Harvir Singh, J.), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 26148 of 2024, decided February 23, 2026 — bail rejected under Sections 363, 377 IPC and Section 5M/6 POCSO Act (Case Crime No. 181 of 2024, P.S. Afzalgarh, District Bijnor); victim aged about 12 years; trial at conclusion stage; Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement recorded or imminent; applicant in jail since 30.05.2024; counsel: Laxmi Kant Shukla and Parvej Alam for applicant; G.A. and Prasoon Tomar for opposite parties.

What did the court decide?

Considering that the offence was committed against a victim who is barely twelve years old and does not know the meaning of the act, and that the trial is at the stage of conclusion, the applicant's prayer for bail is liable to be rejected. ¶14

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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26148 of 2024

¶3

Shahjad Ahmad

¶4

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Laxmi Kant Shukla, Parvej Alam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Prasoon Tomar

¶5

Court No. - 19

¶6

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶7

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

¶8

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 181 of 2024, under Sections 363, 377 I.P.C. and Section 5M/6 The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, P.S. Afzalgarh, District-Bijnor and is in jail since 30.05.2024, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is absolutely innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity as no such incident has ever taken place. He further stated that the alleged victim has alleged some inappropriate behavior that does not constitute an offense under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. He lastly submitted that the applicant has no criminal history in his discredit and he is in jail since 30.05.2024, hence he is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the victim was barely twelve years old, and the act fell under Section 377 of the IPC. The accused-applicant, who is an elderly man, committed the crime. He further stated that the trial is at the stage of conclusion and the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had either been recorded or is likely to be recorded very shortly, and that at this stage, when the trial is likely to conclude, the accused-applicant is not entitled to be released on

¶11

BAIL No. 26148 of 2024

¶12

¶13

bail.

¶14

Having considered the facts that the offence has been committed against the victim, who is barely twelve years old and does not know the meaning of the act. Moreover, the trial is at the stage of conclusion also and in view of the above, the applicant's prayer for bail is liable to be rejected.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

¶16

(Harvir Singh,J.)

¶17

February 23, 2026

¶18

Faridul

¶19

Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shahjad Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahjad Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nakul vs State of U.P. through Its Principal Secretary (Home) at Lucknow, U.P.

Biharilal Yadav vs State of U.P.

Gulam Kasim vs State of U.P.

Devendra Alias Deva Vs State of Up

Bhagwan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ujjwal Porwal Vs State of U.P.