Allahabad High Court
SHUAIBversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail as the contradictions in the victim’s statements, lack of medical evidence, and the guidelines of higher courts warrant release on bail.
Summary
Shuaib applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 310 of 2026) involving sections of the B.N.S. and the POCSO Act. The FIR, lodged by the victim’s father, alleged disappearance, but the victim’s statements under sections 180 and 183 BNSS were contradictory and the medical report showed no injuries. The applicant claimed a consensual relationship with the victim, who returned home after twelve days, and asserted no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail, but the court noted the contradictions, lack of forensic evidence, the filing of a charge‑sheet, overcrowded jails, and Supreme Court guidelines on bail. Relying on the judgments of Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI and Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P., the court granted bail with a personal bond, sureties, and strict conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the nature of the alleged offences under the B.N.S. and POCSO Act
- Whether the contradictions in the victim’s statements and the absence of medical injuries justify granting bail
- Whether the filing of a charge‑sheet eliminates the need for custodial interrogation
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 125, 137, 351(3), 70(2)
- P.O.C.S.O. Act — s. 5G, 6
Subjects
- bail
- contradictory statements
- medical evidence
- POCSO Act
- overcrowded jails
- Supreme Court bail guidelines
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28309 of 2026
Shuaib
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohammad Zakir
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Ankit Agarwal, learned Advocate, on behalf
of the first informant in the Court today is taken on record. The counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the State is also taken on record and, in reply
thereto, learned counsel for the applicant does not propose to file any
rejoinder affidavit.
2. Heard Sri Mohammad Zakir, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Ankit Agarwal, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Roshan Kumar
Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 310 of 2026, under Sections 137,
125, 70(2), 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 5G/6 P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police
Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr, during the pendency of the
trial.
4. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that an FIR was
lodged by the father of the victim regarding the disappearance of the
victim, but there are serious contradictions and vagueness in the
statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, and
the medical examination report of the victim does not show any mark of
injury or any kind of sexual assault. It is further submitted that the correct
fact is that the victim was in a relationship with the applicant and, after
twelve days of the incident, she returned to her home. It is further
submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. It is also submitted
BAIL No. 28309 of 2026
2
that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case; therefore, there is
no requirement for custodial interrogation. The applicant is a law-abiding
citizen and has been languishing in jail since 17.05.2026. In case he is
granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in
the trial proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail
but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
of learned counsel for the parties, the contradictions in the statements of
the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, coupled with the
medical examination report of the victim, and keeping in view the nature
of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, as well as the
overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial
courts, and also considering the mandate of the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038, as well as the
guidelines of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.,
2024 SCC OnLine All 6765, regarding grant of bail, and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that
the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present
application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Shuaib, involved in the aforementioned 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, with the
following conditions:-
i. 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence.
ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without
seeking any adjournment.
iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission
BAIL No. 28309 of 2026
3
of any crime after being released on bail.
iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the
bond executed by him.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
9. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
10. Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant as
well as sureties should be verified by the court concerned.
11. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of
computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official
website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel
with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.
12. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to
the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to
ensure early release of the applicant.
13. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
Jail Superintendent, Bulandshahr via e-mail or on e-prison portal and
Trial Court via e-mode within 24 hours in compliance of the order of the
Apex Court in the case of Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo
Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported
in (2024) 10 SCC 685 as well as Pila Pahan@Peela Pahan and others
Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.
169 of 2025, decided on 29.05.2026.
14. Application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
September 23, 2026
SA
Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…