Mohd Jaif @ Jaif Qadir Minor vs State of U.P.

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.314 of 2022, under Sections 377 of I.P.C. and Section 5L / 6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Mainather, District Moradabad, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶11

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case due to family dispute as the victim is the son of the uncle of co-accused Saiful and Saiwan. It is further submitted that the victim in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has assigned the role of making video from the mobile of the co-accused Azhar Uddin to the applicant, however, in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has assigned the specific role of committing penetrating sexual offence against the applicant. It is further submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and one mobile is said to have been recovered from the possession of the co-accused Azhar Uddin and the charge sheet in this case has already been submitted. It is also submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶12

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for

¶13

NABAIL No. 10884 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

anticipatory bail and it has been submitted by him that the father of the first informant has been served with a notice and the offences alleged against the applicant are of very serious nature. It is also submitted that the opinion of the doctor, who conducted the medico legal examination of the victim has not been received by him in the instructions.

¶16

Applicant is a minor and the victim in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has assigned the role of making video from the mobile of the co-accused Azhar Uddin to the applicant, however, in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has assigned the specific role of committing penetrating sexual offence against the applicant. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and one mobile is said to have been recovered from the possession of the co-accused Azhar Uddin and the charge sheet in this case has already been submitted. It is also submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history.

¶17

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Mohd Jaif @ Jaif Qadir Minor involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on interim anticipatory bail till 09.02.2026 on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- by his natural guardian real mother Smt. Shama Parveen W/o Musharraf Husain, with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions :-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned;

¶20

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

¶21

(iii) The applicant would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶22

NABAIL No. 10884 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned.

¶25

In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶26

List this case on 09.02.2026 as fresh.

¶27

Learned AGA is directed to obtain updated instructions in the matter and the first informant may also file counter affidavit by the next date, if he so desires.

¶28

January 5, 2026 RKM

¶29

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd Jaif @ Jaif Qadir Minor v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Jaif @ Jaif Qadir Minor 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

Similar cases

Ankit Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Brahamdev vs State of U.P. and Another

Sudhir Pachauri vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Alias Petha Alias Naresh vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kishore and 5 Others vs State of U.P.

Pawan Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another