Allahabad High Court

HASEEN KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and consequently granted bail.

Summary

Haseen Khan was arrested in connection with a rape case under the IPC and the POCSO Act, alleged to have assaulted the informant after the informant objected to his advances toward the informant's daughter. The applicant pleaded innocence, arguing that the FIR was filed with a twenty‑hour delay, no indecent video or photographs were recovered, and the informant had filed an affidavit stating he did not wish to pursue the rape allegation. The State opposed bail, but the court noted the lack of material evidence, the informant's affidavit, and the applicant's clean criminal record. Considering these circumstances, the court found that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond and sureties with standard conditions. The order emphasized that the bail grant does not prejudice the trial on merits.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with rape and related offences under the IPC and POCSO Act during the pendency of trial.
Whether the delay in filing the FIR, absence of video/photographic evidence, and the informant's affidavit affect the bail determination.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 183
Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 333, 351(3), 352, 65(1)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4

Subjects

bail
rape
POCSO
false implication
FIR delay
affidavit
Indian Penal Code
Criminal Procedure Code
high court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15337 of 2026

Haseen Khan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mayank Shekhar Singh, Pramod Kumar
Singh Paliwal, Yadvendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.47 out of 259)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised. Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice to the
informant has been served 22.4.2026, but none appeared on behalf of the
informant even in the revised list.

2. Heard Sri Mayank Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as
well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.553 of 2025, under Sections 65(1),
191(2), 191(3), 333, 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police
Station Milak, District Rampur, during the pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant is stated to have raped the daughter of the informant as he
was infatuated with her and wanted to marry her. When the informant
objected to it and reported the matter, the applicant and other accused
persons are stated to have beaten him up causing injuries to him on
13.12.2025 at about 08:00 p.m.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case.
BAIL No. 15337 of 2026
2

6. The FIR is delayed by about twenty hours and there is no explanation of
the said delay cause.

7. The prosecution story stands falsified from the statement of victim
recorded U/s 183 BNSS, whereby she has stated that applicant had video
recorded the said act and clicked certain indecent photographs of her, but
there is no recovery of any indecent video or photograph of the victim.

8. It is true that informant has sustained certain injuries on his body, which
are simple in nature.

9. The informant has filed an affidavit before the Investigating Officer
stating that applicant had an altercation with him and he does not want to
press the allegations made in the FIR regarding rape. As such, it is a clear
cut case of false implication.

10. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 25.2.2026. He
undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:

11. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the
learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.

CONCLUSION:

12. 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 there is no recovery of any indecent video or
photograph of the victim and also the affidavit given by the informant before
the Investigating Officer, 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.

13. Let the applicant- Haseen Khan, be released on bail on furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned,
subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not
tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the
trial court as required.
BAIL No. 15337 of 2026
3

14. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Vikas Verma

Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…