Allahabad High Court
MOHD NADEEMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as a prima facie case exists.
Summary
The applicant, Mohd Nadeem, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 562 of 2025) involving charges under several IPC sections, the POCSO Act, and other provisions. The victim, in a statement recorded under Section 183 of the Evidence Act, claimed she was in love with the applicant and alleged that her father had falsely implicated him, and no indecent photographs were recovered. The court examined the facts, the victim's statement, and the lack of incriminating material, and concluded that a prima facie case for bail existed. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. The order emphasized that breach of conditions would lead to cancellation of bail and would not affect the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged offences under IPC sections 64(1), 351(3), 61(2), 127(2), 77 BNS and POCSO Act sections 3 and 4.
- Whether the victim's statement of consent and lack of photographic evidence affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 127, 351, 61, 64
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- consent
- POCSO
- prima facie
- evidence tampering
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3583 of 2026
Mohd Nadeem
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amitesh Kumar Srivastava, Naushad
Alam, Shashi Kant Dwivedi, Sunita
Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vinod Kumar Yadav
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.91 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Ms. Sunita Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Hakim
Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, learned counsel
for the informant, Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for
the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.562 of 2025, under Sections 64(1),
351(3), 61(2), 127(2), 77 BNS and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station
Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj, during the pendency of trial.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration that the victim appears to be a consenting party as per her
statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, as she has stated that she was
in love with the applicant and her father falsely implicated him, and that,
there is no recovery of any indecent photo of the victim, and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie the Court is of
the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail
application is allowed.
5. Let the applicant- Mohd Nadeem, be released on bail on furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned,
BAIL No. 3583 of 2026
2
subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not
tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the
trial court as required.
6. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…