Shubham vs State of U.P.

Bail application has been filed on behalf of accused appellant Shubham, who has been convicted in Special Sessions Trial No.187 of 2020, (State of U.P .Vs. Shubham), arising out of Case Crime No.39 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Kairana, District Shamli.

¶14

As per the prosecution version, case has been registered on the basis of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the applicant and two coaccused persons regarding kidnapping minor daughter of the informant and committing gang-rape.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that as per prosecution version, the incident is said to be occurred on 01.11.2019 whereas F.I.R. was registered at the very belated stage on 02.02.2020. He further submitted that during course of investigation only accused applicant was found guilty and two co-accused persons namely Rinku and Sanni have been exonerated by I.O. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The victim in her statement recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that she was familiar with the accused applicant before three years of the incident. The applicant is neighbor of the victim and she went along with him to Saharanpur out of her free will and lived there for some period. She has not stated in her statement

¶16

CRLA No. 1622 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that the applicant has committed rape with her but before the trial court she alleged that the applicant has committed rape with her. There are material contradictions in the statements of the victim and prosecution witnesses who have been examined before the trial court. It is argued that appellant was on bail during trial which liberty has not been misused by him. Submission is that the accused appellant has criminal history of five cases which have been explained in paras-20, 21 and 22 of the suspension application/bail application and since hearing of the appeal may take sufficiently long, as such he be enlarged on bail. As per the custody certificate available on record, period of incarceration undergone by the appellant is 4 years, 6 months and 4 days.

¶19

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer made for grant of bail and submits that appellant has committed rape with the minor daughter of the informant. The trial court after perusing all the material available on record and considering each and every aspect of the matter has rightly convicted the appellant.

¶20

Considering the facts that allegation for kidnapping and committing gang rape has been made against the applicant and other co-accused Rinku and Sanni but chargesheet has been filed only against the applicant Shubham, the I.O. himself found guilty the applicant regarding committing rape, the victim denied the allegation of rape committed by the applicant under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in the medical report age of the victim 17 years whereas in the leaving certificate of school, age of the victim was found 14 years and 3 months, the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is only 20 years along with fine, the accused appellant was enlarged on bail by the court during trial, no reliable material is available that he intervened the trial proceedings or violated the bail conditions, as per custody report dated 08.03.2026 submitted by the State, the appellant is in custody for 4 years, 6 months and 4 days, presently he is in custody for more than four years and seven months, learned A.G.A. informs that accused appellant has criminal history of five cases and hearing of the appeal may take some more time, as such in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Babu Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. (1978) 1 SCC 579, Saudan Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2023) 17 SCC 446, Sohail Gohar Vs. State of M.P. (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5013 of 2025, arising out of Crl. Appeal No.2058 of 2025), without further commenting upon the merits of the case, facts and circumstances of this case in totality, this Court is of the view that the

¶21

CRLA No. 1622 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

appellant/applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶24

Let the accused applicant/appellant Shubham be released on bail in the above case on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to furnishing undertaking that:-

¶25

(i) the appellant will co-operate in the hearing of the criminal appeal.

¶26

(ii) the appellant shall inform about the change of address, if any, within fifteen days, failing which the State shall be at liberty to request for cancellation of bail of appellant.

¶27

(iii) the appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities during the pendency of criminal appeal.

¶28

The sentence awarded to the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of criminal appeal subject to depositing the total fine within a period of thirty days after release of the appellant from jail.

¶29

It is made clear that, in case, the fine is not deposited during the aforesaid period, the same shall be recovered by the trial court concerned, forthwith, in accordance with law.

¶30

On acceptance of bail bonds and deposition of fine, the trial court shall transmit photostat copies of relevant records thereof to this Court for being kept on the record of this appeal.

¶31

(Order on Appeal)

¶32

Office is directed to get the paper book prepared within six weeks, if not prepared.

¶33

List the appeal for hearing in due course.

¶34

May 5, 2026 Asha

¶35

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶36

Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shubham v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham v. State of U.P.

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

Smt Chandrakala vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Singh Parihar Alias Tinku vs State of U.P.

Mohd Umar and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Kajal Rajput and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Opendra vs State of U.P.

Vindhyachal vs State of U.P. and Another