Dismissed¶18

Tariq Ansari v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 May 2026BAIL/8096/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected - POCSO and BNS offences (Ss. 333, 65(2) BNS; Ss. 5M, 6 POCSO Act); child victim aged about 08 years with injury on vital part of body; trial at conclusive stage with 11 prosecution witnesses examined and arguments heard; applicant in jail since 7.10.2024; no criminal history contended; Allahabad High Court, Krishan Pahal, J.; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8096 of 2025; expeditious trial direction; observations limited to bail disposal.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; no relief to the applicant. Trial court directed to decide the case expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments to either party. ¶18

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail application rejected; no relief to the applicant. Trial court directed to decide the case expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments to either party.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Tariq Ansari, arraigned in Case Crime No. 248 of 2024 under Sections 333, 65(2) B.N.S. and Sections 5M, 6 POCSO Act, Police Station Ushait, District Budaun, should be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Court's answer

Taking into account that the trial is at its conclusive end, the victim being about 08 years of age and having sustained injuries on a vital part of her body, this is not a fit case for grant of bail; the bail application is devoid of merits and is rejected.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The trial court is directed to decide the pending case expeditiously, in accordance with law, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party, if there is no legal impediment.

¶19

Key takeaways

The observations made in the order are limited to the facts brought by the parties for disposal of the bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Krishan Pahal, J.) rejected the bail application of Tariq Ansari in Case Crime No. 248 of 2024 (Sections 333, 65(2) B.N.S.; Sections 5M, 6 POCSO Act), Police Station Ushait, District Budaun. On the Court's call, a status report dated 17.4.2026 showed the prosecution evidence complete, eleven witnesses examined and arguments heard, i.e., the trial at its conclusive end. Weighing the conclusive stage of trial together with the victim's tender age of about 08 years and the injuries sustained by her on a vital part of the body, the Court held it was not a fit case for bail and rejected the application as devoid of merits. The trial court was directed to decide the case expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments, and it was clarified that the observations were confined to the bail disposal and would have no bearing on the merits at trial.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8096 of 2025

¶3

Tariq Ansari

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ambreen Masroor, Gufran Ahmad Khan, Sadrul Islam Jafri, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 65

¶7

(Sr. No.46 out of 243)

¶8

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶9

List has been revised. Learned State Law Officer has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 21.2.2025.

¶10

Heard Ms. Samara Ushmani, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶11

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.248 of 2024, under Sections 333, 65(2) B.N.S. and Section 5M, 6 POCSO Act, Police Station Ushait, District Budaun with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there are material contradiction in the statement of victim recorded during trial. She has categorically stated that the shop, where she used to visit, is far away from the place of occurrence. The witnesses of fact have already been examined, as such, there is no likelihood of applicant tampering with evidence. He is not a flight risk. It is true that the FIR is prompt, but it is a clear cut case of false implication. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 7.10.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that victim has sustained injuries on the vital part

¶14

BAIL No. 8096 of 2025

¶15

¶16

of the body. The victim is a tender girl of 08 years old. The act of the applicant falls within the category of extreme mental depravity. The trial is also at its conclusive end, as such, the applicant is not entitled to bail.

¶17

This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned trial court. As per the status report dated 17.4.2026, the prosecution evidence is complete. Eleven witnesses have already been examined, and even the arguments in the matter were heard. However, the defence counsel moved an application before the trial court, and after the disposal of said application, the arguments shall again be heard, and the case shall be disposed of.

¶18

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that trial is at its conclusive end and also taking into account the age of victim being about 08 years and she having sustained injuries on her vital part of the body, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected .

¶19

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party, if there is no legal impediment.

¶20

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.

¶21

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶22

May 12, 2026 Vikas Verma

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tariq Ansari v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tariq Ansari 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

Similar cases

Paras Singh Chauhan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jeeshan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Viraj @ Golu vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rohit Soni Alias Punnu Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Baghel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Utkarsh Jaiswal Vs State of U.P.