Allahabad High Court
SUHAILversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant had established a prima facie case for bail and therefore granted bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Suhail, who was arrested in a case under Sections 137(2) and 65(1) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act for allegedly enticing and raping a 15‑year‑old girl. The prosecution relied on the victim’s statement and CCTV footage showing the accused’s presence, while the defence argued that the FIR was delayed, the victim’s account was inconsistent, and the co‑accused had been exonerated, indicating false implication. The court examined the prima facie evidence, the delay in filing the FIR, and the applicant’s lack of prior criminal record. Weighing the arguments, the court found that the applicant had made out a case for bail despite the serious nature of the allegations. Consequently, the bail was granted on condition of a personal bond, two sureties, and compliance with standard bail conditions. The order emphasized that the bail does not affect the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 137(2), 65(1) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3,4 of the POCSO Act pending trial.
- Whether the victim’s statement and CCTV footage constitute a prima facie case justifying denial of bail.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and alleged false implication affect the bail decision.
- Whether the exoneration of co‑accused and stay of proceedings against them impact the applicant’s bail eligibility.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- sexual assault
- false implication
- CCTV evidence
- FIR delay
- sureties
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40871 of 2025
Suhail
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kushagra Srivastava, Shahrukh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohammad Belal
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 113 out of 269)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Two Rejoinder affidavits filed today by the
learned counsel for the applicant are taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Shahrukh, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Mohammad Belal, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Jai
Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the material
available on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 266 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 65(1) B.N.S. and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station -
Garhmukteshwar, District - Hapur, during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The informant has stated that, on 06.05.2025 at about 04:00 a.m., when
he woke up in the morning, he found his minor daughter, aged about 15
years, missing from the house. After making a frantic search, it is alleged
that he came to know that the applicant had enticed her away.
5. It is further stated in the FIR that the applicant is a married person and
that he was seen by villagers, namely, Mehrunisha and Rifaqat, enticing
the victim away.
6. Upon learning of the alleged enticement, the informant is stated to have
gone to the house of the applicant, where he met the applicant’s father and
BAIL No. 40871 of 2025
2
two uncles, namely, Asru, Azru and Nozar. When he enquired from them
about the incident, they allegedly threatened him and turned him away
from their house.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
7. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to
ulterior motive. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in
the FIR.
8. The FIR was lodged on the same day, i.e. 06.05.2025, at about 03:56
p.m., but the same is delayed and no explanation for the delay has been
furnished.
9. The time of the alleged elopement is not mentioned anywhere and that,
while the FIR indicates the presence of co-accused Asru, Azru and Nozar
in the village, the victim in her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS has
stated that the applicant was accompanied by these co-accused, who are
his father and two uncles, in a car and that all four committed gang rape
upon her. The victim has also stated that she returned home on the
evening of 06.05.2025 itself, which renders the prosecution story
improbable in view of the specific recital in the FIR regarding the
presence of the said co-accused in the village and indicates a clear case of
false implication.
10. It is lastly pointed out that the said three co-accused were exonerated
by the police during investigation but were subsequently summoned by
the Trial Court at the stage of cognizance, and that they have challenged
the summoning order by filing an Application under Section 528 BNSS
No. 33467 of 2025, in which further proceedings against them have been
stayed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.11.2025.
11. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.05.2025, having no
criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the
applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and
shall cooperate with trial.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/ STATE:
BAIL No. 40871 of 2025
3
12. The bail application has been vehemently opposed on the ground that
the statement of the victim and the CCTV footage are consistent
regarding the presence of the applicant and show him enticing the victim
away, placing his case on a different footing from that of the other co-
accused persons. It is, therefore, submitted that, the applicant being the
main accused, is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
CONCLUSION:
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions
of learned counsel for the parties, the vacillating stand of the victim at
different stages, and the version in the FIR wherein the presence of the
co-accused was shown only at the house and they were later alleged to
have committed gang rape with the victim, this Court is, prima facie, of
the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
14. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
15. Let the applicant- Suhail, be released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, 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.
16. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 14, 2026
Siddhant
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…