Allahabad High Court
MOHD ASHRAF @ ASRAF HAMEEDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Mohd Ashraf @ Asraf Hameed in a case involving alleged rape and other offences under the IPC and the POCSO Act. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, the FIR was lodged after a seven‑day delay, he was not named in the FIR or the victim’s statement, and he has no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail but could not dispute the factual background. Relying on the principles of bail, the overcrowding of jails, and Supreme Court precedents (Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI and Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P.), the Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail. The bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence, committing further offences, and ensuring cooperation with the trial.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate exercise of discretion in granting bail to an accused charged with serious offences under the IPC and POCSO Act, especially when the FIR was lodged after a delay and the accused is not named in the FIR or victim’s statement?
- Does the applicant’s lack of criminal history and the existence of a co‑accused already on bail justify granting bail despite the nature of the alleged crime?
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 118(1), 137(2), 333, 351(3), 65(1), 70(1), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 16, 17, 3, 4, 5, 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- rape
- delay in FIR
- jail overcrowding
- presumption of innocence
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30922 of 2026
Mohd Ashraf @ Asraf Hameed
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aradhana Mishra, Mazhar Ullah, Md
Faiz Siddiqui
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhishek Tandon, G.A., Shailesh
Kumar Yadav, Suraj Kumar
Chaudhary, Vivek Kumar Srivastava
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. List revised. Heard Sri Mazhar Ullah, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri Shiv Dutt Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Suraj
Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the first informant.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 74 of 2026, under Sections 65(1),
137(2), 70(1), 87, 333, 118(1), 351(3) BNS and Sections 3/4/16/17 and
5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Puramufti, District Prayagraj, during
the pendency of the trial.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has
filed supplementary affidavit and after filing of supplementary affidavit,
Section 70(1) BNS and Section 5/6 of POCSO have also been added,
therefore, he prays to make necessary correction in the memo of
application.
4. Prayer aforesaid is allowed. He may do so during course of day.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and the FIR has
been lodged after a delay of seven days and the applicant is not named in
the FIR and his name does not find place in the statement of the victim
recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, however, his name has
BAIL No. 30922 of 2026
2
surfaced during investigation on the basis of suspicion. It is further
submitted that similarly placed co-accused Farookh Ahmad has already
been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
24.8.2026 passed in Criminal Bail Application No. 28813 of 2026. It is
also submitted that the applicant has been languishing in jail since
31.7.2026 and he is having no criminal history. It is lastly submitted that
in case the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail
and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A.
have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the
aforesaid facts
7. FIR has been lodged after a delay of seven days alleging there that co-
Musaraff and three other unknown entered the house of the first informant
and took away the victim aged about 14 years and committed rape on
her. The applicant is not named in the FIR and his name does not find
place in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183
BNSS, however, his name has surfaced during investigation on the basis
of suspicion. Similarly placed co-accused Farookh Ahmad has already
been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
24.8.2026 passed in Criminal Bail Application No. 28813 of 2026. The
applicant has been languishing in jail since 31.7.2026 and he is having no
criminal history.
8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of
offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into account
overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial
courts as well as considering the mandate of the judgement 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 guideline of this Court
in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. reported in 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.
BAIL No. 30922 of 2026
3
9. Accordingly, the present application is ALLOWED.
10. Let the applicant- Mohd Ashraf @ Asraf Hameed 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 of any crime after being released on bail.
(iv) The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the
bond executed by him.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground
for cancellation of bail.
12. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant as well
as sureties should be verified by the court concerned.
13. 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.
14. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
concerned Jail Superintendent via e-mail or e-prison portal 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.
BAIL No. 30922 of 2026
4
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
October 1, 2026
Abhishek
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…