Mohammad Arif vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in F.I.R. No. 117 of 2025, under Sections 64(2)M, 61(2) BNS and Section 16/17 POCSO Act, Police Station Gadaganj, District Raebareli with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that as per the prosecution case, the victim was in conversation with co-accused Mohd. Minhaj. The allegation is that Minhaj came to meet with the victim on 23.07.2025 and thereafter, he tried to outrage the modesty and when she stopped him, he told that he will solemnize marriage with her. In the meantime, her family members, who knew about their relations, came there. At the same time, parents of Minhaj also reached there and started quarreling. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been implicated in the present case only being the friend of Minhaj. It is vehemently submitted that Minhaj has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 04.11.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 10610 of 2025. It is lastly submitted that in near future, there is no possibility of conclusion of

¶12

BAIL No. 3521 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

trial and the applicant, who has no criminal antecedent, is in jail since 12.04.2026. In such circumstances, applicant is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the applicant will never misuse the liberty of bail and shall fully cooperate in the trial.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that sufficient evidences have been found against the applicant. However, he does not dispute the fact that all the allegations are against co-accused Minhaj and the victim was in relation with Minhaj. He also concedes the fact that the applicant is the friend of MInhaj, who has already been granted bail.

¶16

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of F.I.R., statements of the victim and other relevant documents, it is evident that the victim, in her statement, categorically stated that she was in association with the Minhaj and on the date of incident, Minhaj came to met her and thereafter, they were caught by her parents. At the same time, parents of Minhaj also reached there and quarrel was started. It is also evident that the applicant is the friend of Minhaj. Moreover, Mohd. Mihaj has already been granted bail in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 10610 of 2025. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

Application stands allowed.

¶18

Let applicant -Mohammad Arif be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 117 of 2025, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶19

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

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶21

BAIL No. 3521 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶25

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNS.

¶26

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 BNS.

¶27

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶28

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶29

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶30

June 9, 2026 VKS

¶31

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohammad Arif v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Arif v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

Taufiq Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ajit Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rinku @ Rahul @ Haiden vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shubham Shukla @ Dhoni Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Ram Tej Yadav Alias Rinku Yadav vs State of U.P through Principal Secretary Home

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another