Allahabad High Court
SHOAIBversusSTATE 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 therefore granted bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Shoaib, accused in a rape case involving sections of the IPC, the SC/ST Act and the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that Shoaib stood guard while the co‑accused committed the offence, but the victim’s statements were inconsistent and she failed to identify Shoaib in a statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S. No test identification parade was conducted. Shoa2 argued that he was falsely implicated, had no criminal record, and was prepared to cooperate with the trial. The State did not oppose the bail on substantive grounds. After evaluating the vacillating statements, lack of identification parade, and the applicant’s claim of innocence, the court concluded that Shoaib had made out a case for bail and ordered his release on personal bond and sureties with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused in a rape case under IPC, SC/ST Act and POCSO Act during trial.
- Whether the absence of a test identification parade and inconsistent victim statements justify granting bail.
- Whether the minor status of the victim impacts the bail decision.
- Whether the applicant’s claim of innocence and lack of prior criminal history warrant bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 180, 183, 7
- Indian Penal Code — s. 351(3), 352, 61(2), 64(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(II)(V)
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- SC/ST Act
- POCSO Act
- identification parade
- minor victim
- Indian Penal Code
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15296 of 2026
Shoaib
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 53 out of 269)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Gaurav Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant 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. 901 of 2025, under Sections
64(1), 352, 351(3), 61(2) BNS and 3(II)(V) SC/ST Act and 3/4 POCSO Act,
Police Station Khair, District Aligarh, during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The co-accused persons Munassir is stated to have committed rape with
the victim and the applicant along with Arbaz is stated to have stood
guard to it on 19.12.2025 at about 3.00 pm.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. The FIR categorically indicates that victim was ravished by the
co-acused person Arbaz. The only allegation against the applicant was of
standing guard but the said story has been changed drastically by the victim
in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., and she has allayed
that applicant along with the main accused person Arbaz had comittted gang
rape with her. The said allegations have been added as an afterthought. The
BAIL No. 15296 of 2026
2
victim in her statement recorded u/s 180 BNSS has even failed to identify
the applicant.
6. There is no test identification parade conducted as per Section 7 of the
BSA to indicate the complicity of the applicant, as such, the applicant is
entitled for bail.
7. The victim, by her physical appearance, seems to be major although her
age is 16 years as per ossification test report. In view of the inherent margin
of error in such tests, it is urged that a leverage of two years on the upper
side may be granted to the applicant while determining the age of the
victim.
8. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing
in jail since 26.3.2026 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:
9. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by
counsel for the applicant has not been opposed.
CONCLUSION:
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the vacillating statements of the victim at various stages and
there being no test identification parade of the applicant conducted to
indicate his complicity 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.
11. Let the applicant- Shoaib, 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. 15296 of 2026
3
12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
13. 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 14, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…