Allahabad High Court
SHERAJULDDINversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application is allowed.
Summary
The applicant, Sherajulddin, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 246 of 2025) involving offences under Sections 64(2), 115(2), 352 of the IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act. He contended that he was falsely implicated, the FIR was lodged five months after the alleged incident, and there was no medical evidence as the victim refused examination. The State and the informant opposed bail, but could not refute the applicant’s claim of innocence or the procedural irregularities. The Court, noting the delay in filing the FIR and the lack of medical corroboration, held that the applicant had made out a case for bail without passing on the merits of the charges. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions prohibiting evidence tampering, witness intimidation, and mandating appearance before the trial court.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial despite the seriousness of the offences under the IPC and POCSO Act
- Whether the five‑month delay in filing the FIR and the absence of medical evidence justify the grant of bail
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing prosecution witnesses
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 352, 64(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 5, 6
Subjects
- bail
- delay in FIR
- medical evidence
- IPC
- POCSO Act
- presumption of innocence
- sureties
- evidence tampering
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30364 of 2025
Sherajulddin
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vipin Kumar Singh
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No.143 out of 262)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal, learned counsel for the applicant,
Sri Vipin Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri
R.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 246 of 2025, under Sections
64(2), 115(2), 352 BNS and 5(ढ़)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Raunapar,
District Azamgarh, 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 about five months and there is no explanation of the said
delay caused. There is no medical corroboration of the incident as the victim
has categorically denied her medical examination.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no
criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since
5.7.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Learned State Law Officer 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.
BAIL No. 30364 of 2025
2
7. 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, 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.
8. Let the applicant- Sherajulddin, 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
following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties
be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. 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 2, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…