Allahabad High Court

SHANUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: GAUTAM CHOWDHARY

Holding

The Court granted bail to the applicant subject to stringent conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Shanu, who is charged under IPC sections 363, 343, 376, 366 and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act for allegedly enticing away the informant's sister and committing serious offences. The applicant argued that the alleged victim, a consenting adult, had married him voluntarily and that a compromise deed between the parties existed, seeking release from jail where he had been detained since 19 May 2025. The State opposed bail, contending that innocence could not be determined at the pre‑trial stage. The Court, after reviewing the record and noting the absence of any material suggesting evidence tampering, accepted the compromise as genuine and granted bail with strict conditions. The bail order required personal bond, sureties, and prohibitions against tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, and committing similar offences.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the charges under IPC and POCSO Act.
Whether the compromise deed between the applicant and the informant influences the bail decision.
Whether there is a risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation warranting denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 343, 363, 366, 376
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4

Subjects

bail
IPC
POCSO
compromise deed
pre‑trial detention
evidence tampering
witness intimidation
marriage consent

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23042 of 2025

Shanu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Farid Ahmad, Mohammad
Danish
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Iftakhar Ahmad

Court No. - 65
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Iftakhar Ahmad,
learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A for the State
and perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to
the F.I.R. allegations, the applicant has enticed away the sister
of the informant. Learned counsel for the applicant has
contended that the applicant's first wife namely, Mantasha was
died and that the victim of the instant case is the sister-in-law (
sali) of the applicant. He further submits that the victim is
major and out of own free will had solemnised marriage with
the applicant, thereafter the marriage has been registered before
the Marriage Registrar Chandausi on 21.12.2021, copy of
which is annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit accompanying
the bail application. Learned counsel has drawn attention of
this Court to Annexure-SA7 to the supplementary affidavit,
which is compromise deed entered into between the parties and
argued that the matter has been compromised between the
applicant and the informant, therefore the applicant may be
enlarged on bail. It has also been assured on behalf of the
applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law
and shall faithfully make himself available before the court
whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions
BAIL No. 23042 of 2025
2

which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next
submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 19.05.2025.

3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of
the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant
cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not
deserve any indulgence.

4. Learned counsel for the informant has verified the veracity
of the compromise. He further submits that he has no objection,
in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail.

5. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions
made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts
and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also
the absence of any convincing material to indicate the
possibility of tampering with the evidence, without expressing
any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view, that
the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

6. Let applicant Shanu involved in Case Crime No.521 of
2021 under Sections 363, 343, 376, 366 I.P.C., and Section 3/4
of POCSO Act, Police Station Chandausi, District Sambhal, be
released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local
heavy sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution
witnesses.

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial
court.

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the
commission.
BAIL No. 23042 of 2025
3

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from
disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper
with the evidence.

7. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the trial
Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in
accordance with law.

8. The bail application is allowed.

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)

March 19, 2026
S.Ali

Digitally signed by :-
SHAUKAT ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…