Sher Mohammad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

As per compliance affidavit filed by the State it reflects, notice has been served to the informant on 06.03.2026. Despite service of notice none present on behalf of informant.

¶10

Heard Sri Aditya Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kunwar Tejandra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State.

¶11

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 116 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1), 127(3) BNS and Section 6 POCSO Act, Police Station Saini, District Kaushambi during pendency of the trial.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant is innocent and on the basis of false allegation he has been made accused in the present matter. He further submits, actually applicant and victim both were having love affair and victim herself had gone along with applicant but after recovery under threat and instigation of her parents she started making allegation of rape against applicant.

¶13

He further submits, even from the statement of victim recorded under Section 180 BNSS it reflects, she was consenting party.

¶14

He further submits, the statement of victim recorded under Sectionv183 BNSS is contrary to her earlier statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS and even this statement prima facie appears to be highly improbable.

¶15

He next submits, as per school record victim is about 16 years old but as

¶16

BAIL No. 43465 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

per report of CMO her age is between 18-20 years, therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that she was below 18 years of age.

¶19

He next submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 10.04.2025 i.e. for almost a year.

¶20

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶22

However, as per school record, victim was about 15 years 8 months old on the date of incident but according to the report of CMO concerned her age was about 18-20 years.

¶23

Further, however, victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS made serious allegation of abduction and rape against applicant but prima facie her statement appears to be improbable.

¶24

Further, however, in her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS also victim stated that applicant against her wishes committed rape upon her but from her medical report it reflects, at the time of her medical examination she informed the doctor that she herself had gone along with applicant.

¶25

Further, even from the FIR it reflects, victim at the time of leaving her paternal home has also taken Rs. 25,000/- cash and golden locket, therefore, argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that actually victim herself had gone along with applicant but after recovery she started making allegation against applicant in the pressure of her parents cannot be ruled out.

¶26

Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 10.04.2025 i.e. for almost a year.

¶27

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶28

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶29

BAIL No. 43465 of 2025

¶30

3

¶31

Let the applicant - Sher Mohammad be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶32

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶33

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

¶34

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶35

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶36

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶37

March 19, 2026 AK Pandey

¶38

(Sameer Jain,J.)

¶39

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sher Mohammad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sher Mohammad 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

Firoz Ansari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Santosh Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kumari Dipti Dubey vs State of U.P. and Another

Avanish @ Anish vs State of U.P.

Bhagwandas and 2 Others vs State of U.P.