Allahabad High Court
SADDAM HUSSAINversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and granted it subject to conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Saddam Hussain, who was charged under Section 70(2) of the BNS Act, Sections 5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for an alleged outraging of modesty that was later escalated to rape. The applicant argued that the FIR was false, anti‑time and delayed by a day, and that there was no medical evidence or prior criminal record. The State could not refute these submissions. The court noted the applicant had been in custody since 2 March 2026, had no criminal history, and was unlikely to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. Consequently, the court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and ordered his release on personal bond and sureties, subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial under the applicable statutes given the nature of the allegations.
- Whether the delay and alleged falsity of the FIR justify granting bail.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.
Legislation cited
- BNS Act — s. 70(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 5(g), 6
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(5)
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- FIR delay
- outraging modesty
- POCSO Act
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15175 of 2026
Saddam Hussain
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Richesh Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No.37 out of 205)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to
the informant has been served on 19.4.2026.
2. Heard Sri Richesh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri
J.K. Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 13 of 2026, under Sections 70(2)
BNS, 5(G)/6 POCSO Act and 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kolhui,
District Magarajganj, 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. The FIR is anti-time, which is indicative from the fact that the
chalani report u/s 170, 126 and 135 BNSS dated 10.2.2026 indicates that
applicant and co-accused person were on the verge of assaulting the
informant, as he had instituted the said FIR. The said investigating officer
had released the applicant from his custody on 12.2.2026. Had the said FIR
been existing at the said relevant point of time, he would have been arrested
in the instant case as well, as such, it is a clear-cut case of false implication.
The said chalani report has been filed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit.
5. Even otherwise, the FIR is delayed by one day and the allegations were
regarding outraging of modesty only but the same have been escalated to
BAIL No. 15175 of 2026
2
that of rape in the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS as an
afterthought. There is no medical corroboration of the incident.
6. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing
in jail since 2.3.2026 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:
7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application but could not dispute the
submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
CONCLUSION:
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the fact that applicant has been apprehended by the police u/s
170, 126 and 135 BNSS at the same police station and even the allegations
being only of outraging of modesty of the victim and the FIR being delayed
by one day 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.
9. Let the applicant- Saddam Hussain, 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.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
11. 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 5, 2026\Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…