Allahabad High Court
JUNAIDversusSTATE 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 bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties and standard conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Junaid in a criminal case (Crime No. 348 of 2024) involving alleged offences under IPC sections 87, 70(2), 123 and POCSO Act sections 9(g) and 10. The applicant claimed innocence, arguing that the FIR was filed two months after the alleged incident, there was no medical evidence linking him to the alleged act, and the victim’s age as a minor was not substantiated. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. The Court noted the delay in filing the FIR, the absence of medical corroboration, and the lack of evidence that the applicant spiked the victim’s drink or administered injections, and found that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Consequently, bail was granted on the condition of a personal bond, two sureties, and compliance with standard bail conditions. The order clarified that the bail decision would not prejudice the trial judge’s independent assessment of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving IPC sections 87, 70(2), 123 and POCSO Act sections 9(g)/10 given the delay in FIR and lack of medical evidence.
- Whether the applicant’s alleged innocence, lack of criminal history, and the circumstances of the case justify bail.
- What conditions should be imposed on the bail to ensure the applicant does not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 123, 70(2), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 10, 9(g)
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- delay in FIR
- POCSO
- minor
- medical evidence
- sureties
- IPC sections 87 70(2) 123
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15191 of 2026
Junaid
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ranjeet Kumar Asthana
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 6 out of 259)
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 24.4.2026.
2. Heard Sri Ranjeet Kumar Asthana, learned counsel for the applicant as
well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 348 of 2024, under Sections 87,
70(2) and 123 BNS and 9(g)/10 POCSO Act, Police Station Crossing
Republic, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
FIR is delayed by about two months and there is no explanation of the said
delay caused. There is nothing on record to prove that applicant spiked the
cold drink or administered the victim some injections rendering her
unconscious or incapable of resisting. It is a clear-cut case of false
implication as there is no medical corroboration of the incident. The victim,
by her physical appearance, seems to be major although her age is stated to
be 14 years but there is no valid documentary evidence to suggest that she
was minor.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no
criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since
BAIL No. 15191 of 2026
2
26.9.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could
not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay in FIR; there being no medical corroboration of the
incident; there being no evidence that applicant spiked the cold drink or
administered the victim some injections rendering her unconscious 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.
8. Let the applicant- Junaid, 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.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. 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 6, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…