Allahabad High Court
SHAMIM KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
Shamim Khan was arrested in connection with offences alleged under various sections of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and other statutes. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, pointing to a one‑day delay in filing the FIR, an ossification test indicating the alleged victim was 17 years old, and a victim statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S. denying any indecent act. The medical report and lack of corroborative evidence further weakened the prosecution's case. The State opposed bail but could not refute these points. The court, after a prima facie assessment, found no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation and, noting the applicant's clean record and prolonged pre‑trial detention, ordered his release on bail with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution's case for bail denial.
- Whether the age of the alleged victim and her statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S. negate the seriousness of the charges.
- Whether there is a likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or fleeing if released on bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 115(2), 331(6), 351(3), 352, 74
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 7, 8
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(5)
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- delay in FIR
- age of victim
- SC/ST Act
- POCSO
- medical evidence
- prima facie
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12264 of 2026
Shamim Khan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Birendra Singh, G.A., Swati Singh
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma,
learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party, and Sri Krishna Kumar Yadav,
Advocate holding brief of Sri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the
informant.
2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 34 of 2026, under Sections 74, 115(2),
331(6), 351(3), 352 B.N.S., 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act (P.A.) Act and 7/8 The
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Atarra,
District Banda during the pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have
occurred on 23.01.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on
24.01.2026. The delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the
prosecution case. It is contended that the victim is major. The ossification
test report submitted by Chief Medical Officer, Banda to determine the age
of the victim opines that she is 17 years. The range of error in determining
the age is about two years and the same should be read in favour of the
applicant at this stage. Further, the victim in her statement under Section 180
B.N.S.S., in response to a specific query put by the Investigating Officer,
stated that the applicant had not acted indecently with her. The medical
report also does not support the prosecution case. Also, it has been
submitted, the allegations of violation of SC/ST Act are general and made to
lend colour to the story. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to
BAIL No. 12264 of 2026
2
link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 25.01.2026
having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse
the said liberty.
4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the
prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions
from the record.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been
lodged belatedly. As per the ossification test report submitted by Chief
Medical Officer, Banda, the victim was found aged 17 years. The victim in
her statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S., in response to a specific query put
by the Investigating Officer, stated that the applicant had not acted
indecently with her. The medical report also does not support the
prosecution case. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the
applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.
Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than two and half
months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early
conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the
fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper
with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore,
without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the
applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant- Shamim Khan, involved in the aforesaid case, be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the
conditions that he:
(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
April 20, 2026
SKT/- (Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…