Allahabad High Court
MU RAJU FAROOKIversusSTATE 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 under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Mu Raju Farooki, who was summoned under Section 319 CrPC despite not being named in the FIR or the victim's statements. The applicant had been subject to non‑bailable warrants and arrested on 29 July 2026, remaining in custody with no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail, arguing the applicant’s alleged involvement in offences under Sections 363, 366, 376D IPC and 5g/6 POCSO Act, though his name was absent from the chargesheet. The Court, taking into account the nature of the alleged offences, the lack of direct evidence against the applicant, overcrowded prisons, and precedents such as Kapil Wadhawan v CBI and Maya Tiwari v State of U.P., granted bail with strict conditions. The order directed verification of identities, bond execution, and prompt release through the Bail Order Management System.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused not named in the FIR or chargesheet but summoned under Section 319 CrPC.
- Whether Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is applicable in the present circumstances.
- Whether the presence of non‑bailable warrants and the nature of the alleged offences preclude bail.
- Whether considerations of jail overcrowding and Supreme Court precedents justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161, 164, 319
- Indian Penal Code — s. 363, 366, 376D
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 5g, 6
Subjects
- bail
- Section 483 B.N.S.S.
- non‑bailable warrant
- overcrowded prisons
- POCSO
- sexual offences
- Section 319 CrPC
- trial pending
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31660 of 2026
Mu Raju Farooki
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sarvesh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
B.P. Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.
2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer
to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 147 of 2019 under Sections 363,
366, 376D IPC and 5g/6 POCSO Act registered at Police Station Kurawali,
District Mainpuri during pendency of the trial.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is not
named in the FIR, however, the victim in her statement recorded under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has specifically assigned the role to co-
accused Khushnavi and name of the applicant does not find mention in the
chargesheet. However, on the basis of the statement of the victim, learned
trial court has summoned the applicant to face trial under section 319
Cr.P.C. It is next submitted that on perusal of the ordersheet of the learned
trial court, it appears that initially, summon was issued to the applicant
which was not served on him, thereafter on 21.3.2025, summons were again
issued to him and then bailable warrants were issued against him. It is next
submitted that there is no report regarding service of summon or bailable
warrant on the applicant and non-bailable warrants have been issued against
him when he came to know about the proceedings of the case, thereafter, he
has been arrested and he is languishing in jail since 29.7.2026. It is next
submitted that applicant has no criminal history and he is ready and willing
BAIL No. 31660 of 2026
2
to co-operate in the trial. It is lastly submitted that in case applicant is
granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the
trial proceedings.
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail to
the applicant and submits that applicant is not named in the FIR, however,
he does not dispute the fact that his name does not find mention in the
statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well
as in the chargesheet.
5. As per the FIR, applicant and four other accused persons are said to have
enticed away the daughter of the first informant aged about 16 years. The
victim in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has
stated that she is 17 years old and she was in relationship with co-accused
Khushnavi. The victim has not named the applicant in her statements nor his
name finds place in the chargesheet. However, during trial, on the basis of
the testimony of the victim, trial court has summoned the applicant to face
trial under section 319 Cr.P.C. As per the ordersheet of the trial court, it
appears that summons have been issued against the applicant for the first
time on 29.8.2025, thereafter, non bailable warrant have been issued against
him on 06.1.2026 and he has been arrested on 29.7.2026 and since then, he
is languishing in jail. Applicant has no criminal history to his credit and he
is ready and willing to co-operate in the trial.
6. 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.
7. Let the applicant Mu Raju Farooki 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
BAIL No. 31660 of 2026
3
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.
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. Verification
of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant as well as sureties
should be verified by the court concerned.
10. 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.
11. 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.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
September 30, 2026
Madhurima
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…