Allahabad High Court
ALIMAAN KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted to the applicant.
Summary
Alimaan Khan applied for bail in a case (Crime No. 405 of 2020) involving offences under Sections 363, 366, 376, 323, 346 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated, asserting that the victim, who was 16 at the time of the alleged offence, had lived with him in Bengaluru for five years and had given consent, as reflected in her statement under Section 183 of the Evidence Act. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the applicant’s arguments. The Court examined the victim’s statement, the alleged consent, and the applicant’s lack of prior criminal record, and concluded that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused facing multiple serious IPC offences and POCSO charges.
- Whether the victim’s alleged consent, as recorded under Section 183 of the Evidence Act, negates the applicability of the offences.
- Whether the accused poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses.
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 346, 363, 366, 376
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- PCSO Act
- consent
- minor
- IPC offences
- evidence
- Section 183
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14300 of 2026
Alimaan Khan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Syed Ali Imam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pande Priti Premshankar
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No.40 out of 265)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A. notice to the
informant has been served on 19.4.2026.
2. Heard Sri Syed Ali Imam, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pande
Priti Premshankar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 as well as Sri
A.K. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed
on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 405 of 2020, under Sections 363,
366, 376, 323, 346 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Sahibabad,
District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
4. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. FIR was instituted against the applicant on 2.3.2020 of
having enticed away the minor daughter of the informant but the victim
and the applicant went all the way to Bengaluru and started living there
but inadvertently, the parties fell apart and the victim returned to her
maternal house in the year 2025 and she has deposed against the applicant
thereupon.
5. The consent of the victim is evident from the fact that she has remained
with the applicant for five years in Bengaluru. The allegations made by
the victim in her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS are that applicant kept
BAIL No. 14300 of 2026
2
her in a slum area and therefore, she could not raise any alarm,
whatsoever there. The slum area is a congested one and it is not possible
for a person to be kept confined for such a long period. The victim has
taken a false ground that the persons in the locality did not understand her
language and neither did she understand their language. Linguistics must
be able to communicate but the demeanour gives message to each and
every body, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail.
6. The victim, by her physical appearance, seems to be major although her
age was 16 years as per Class IX certificate, at the time of offence. There is
no valid document to suggest that victim was minor.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no
criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since
28.10.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
8. The bail application was opposed but the submissions made by learned
counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.
CONCLUSION:
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, whereby
she seems to be consenting party as she remained with the applicant at
Bengaluru for five years and did not raise any alarm whatsoever and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view
that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is
allowed.
10. Let the applicant- Alimaan Khan, who is involved in aforementioned
case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned
subject to verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper
with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court
as required.
BAIL No. 14300 of 2026
3
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
12. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent
opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 7, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…