Allahabad High Court

FARZAND ALIAS FAIZANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The court held that the applicant was entitled to bail as the evidence did not establish a likelihood of conviction and the victim’s statements were inconsistent.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Farzand alias Faizan, who was arrested in a case under IPC sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) and POCSO Act sections 3 and 4(2) for alleged sexual offences against a 13‑year‑old girl. The applicant pleaded innocence, arguing that the FIR was lodged after a four‑day delay, the victim’s statements were inconsistent and she turned hostile during trial, and that there was no likelihood of conviction. The State highlighted the seriousness of the offence, the minor status of the victim, and the applicant’s age advantage. After evaluating the material, the court found the victim’s vacillating testimony and the lack of clear incriminating evidence sufficient to grant bail. Consequently, the court ordered the release of the applicant on personal bond and sureties, subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged under IPC and POCSO provisions when the victim’s testimony is inconsistent.
Whether the delay in filing the FIR and claim of false implication affect the likelihood of conviction.
Whether the seriousness of the alleged offence against a minor precludes bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 65(1), 87
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4(2)

Subjects

bail
IPC
POCSO
minor victim
Article 21
criminal procedure
false implication

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20669 of 2025

Farzand Alias Faizan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Kumar Singh, Atharva Dixit, Roshni
Murad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Prakash Sharma

Court No. - 65
(Sl. No.98 out of 259)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised. Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the informant
and third supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant
respectively, are taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prakash Sharma,
learned counsel for the informant 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. 188 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87,
65(1) BNS and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Adampur, District Varanasi, 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 was instituted against unknown persons, that too, after a delay of four
days.

5. The victim has been examined during trial as PW-2 and she has completely resiled
from her earlier statement given to the Investigating Officer and the allegations of the
FIR. The witness has been cross-examined by the public prosecutor after declaring her
hostile. Rather, she has stated that she was not enticed away by the applicant and her
age has been suppressed by her parents during her cross-examination taken up during
trial. There is no likelihood of conviction in the present case under the circumstances.
The fundamental rights of the applicant as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution
of India stand violated.
BAIL No. 20669 of 2025
2

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history
of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.12.2024 and he is ready
to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:

7. The victim was minor. As per school certificate, she is 13 years old and she has
supported the said fact that she studied in the school mentioned in the school
certificate during her cross-examination, although she has not mentioned about her
age at that time. The applicant is more than double the age of the victim.

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
vacillating statement of the victim that too during her statement recorded in Court 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- Farzand Alias Faizan, 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 6, 2026
Shalini

Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…