Allahabad High Court
MOHAMMED SHUAIBversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant’s identification in the CCTV footage precludes the grant of bail.
Summary
The applicant, Mohammed Shuaib, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 186 of 2025) involving alleged sexual assault, filed under IPC sections 64(1), 62, 324(5) and 310(2). The applicant argued that the FIR contained generic allegations and that CCTV footage did not conclusively identify him, emphasizing his clean record and willingness to cooperate. The informant’s counsel contended that the victim’s statement under section 183 had been upgraded to a sexual assault claim and that the CCTV footage clearly showed the applicant groping the victim. After reviewing the CCTV footage, the court found that the applicant was indeed identified, and the bail application was deemed without merit. Consequently, the bail was denied, and the court directed the trial to proceed expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant can be granted bail despite being identified in CCTV footage as committing sexual assault
- Whether the escalation of the victim's statement under section 183 to a sexual assault allegation affects bail eligibility
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 310(2), 324(5), 62, 64(1)
Subjects
- bail
- sexual assault
- CCTV evidence
- identification
- Indian Penal Code
- Criminal Procedure Code
- victim statement
- trial expeditious
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 190 of 2026
Mohammed Shuaib
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohit Kumar Singh, Shams Uz Zaman,
Sujata Choudhary
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Taufir-Ul-Islam
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.123 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Ms. Sujata Choudhary, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Taufir-Ul-
Islam, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia,
learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on
record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime
No.186 of 2025, under Sections 64(1), 62, 324(5), 310(2) BNS, Police
Station Kotwali, District Meerut with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there are general and
omnibus allegations in the FIR against all the accused persons, but the
victim, in her statement recorded under section 183 BNSS, has escalated the
allegations to that of sexual assault against the applicant as an afterthought
after legal consultation. There are a lot of accused persons named in the FIR
along with some unknown persons.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the CCTV
footage is not a conclusive evidence and the applicant has not been identified
in it, causing any injury to any person. As such, he is entitled to bail. There
is no criminal history of the applicant and he is in jail since 21.11.2025. He
is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he
will not misuse the liberty of bail.
BAIL No. 190 of 2026
2
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have
vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that one of the two
accused persons was granted bail and the bail application of other was
rejected only on the ground that he was identified in the CCTV footage. he
applicant is also identified in the said CCTV footage groping the victim. As
such, he is not entitled to bail.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the CCTV footage, whereby applicant is identified in it and the said fact is
admitted to both the parties, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the
applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly,
rejected.
8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously, without granting unnecessary adjournment to
either party, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.
9. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…