Allahabad High Court
FIROZversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court granted bail to the applicant, finding that the bail application was made out.
Summary
Firoz applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 203 of 2025) involving charges under the IPC, POCSO Act and SC/ST Act, alleging that he was falsely implicated. He argued that the FIR was filed five hours after the alleged incident, there was no medical evidence, and the victim’s statements were recorded after tutoring. The prosecution opposed bail, but the court noted that a delay in filing the FIR and lack of corroborative evidence raised reasonable doubt. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. (2020) that pending cases do not bar bail if the applicant’s case is made out, the court found the bail plea justified. Consequently, the court granted bail on the condition of a personal bond, two sureties, and compliance with standard bail conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and absence of medical evidence justify granting bail in a serious offence case.
- Whether the existence of multiple pending criminal cases against the accused precludes bail.
- Whether the applicant’s claim of false implication and cooperation with trial satisfy the criteria for bail under the relevant statutes.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 333, 351(3), 352, 65(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)(5), 3(2)(5a)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- rape
- POCSO Act
- SC/ST Act
- FIR delay
- medical evidence
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21506 of 2025
Firoz
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, Shafaque,
Shyamu Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vishnu Swaroop Srivastava
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 90 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, learned counsel for the applicant,
Sri Vishnu Swaroop Srivastava, 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. 203 of 2025, under Sections
65(1), 333, 351(3), 352 BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act and 3(1)Da, Dha, 3(2)(5),
3(2)(5a) SC/ST Act, Police Station Gulriha, District Gorakhpur, 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 five hours and there is no explanation of the said delay
caused. The allegations in the FIR were of only disrobing the victim and
attempting to commit rape but the same have been escalated to that of rape
by the victim in her statement recorded u/s 180 and 183 BNSS. The said
statements have been recorded after tutoring. There is no medical
corroboration of the incident.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is a criminal
history of one case assigned to the applicant which stands explained. The
applicant is languishing in jail since 13.3.2025 and he is ready to cooperate
BAIL No. 21506 of 2025
2
with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail.
6. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently
opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions made by
the counsel for the applicant.
7. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another,
(2020) 11 SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases
against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his
case for bail is made out.
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 delay in FIR; the allegations in the FIR were of disrobing
the victim and attempting to commit rape only; there being no medical
corroboration of the incident 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- Firoz, 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.)
April 23, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…