Allahabad High Court
ARBAZ @ ARBAZ SHAHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and therefore granted bail.
Summary
Arbaz Shah was arrested in a case involving alleged sexual molestation under Sections 64, 351(3), 137(2), 87 of the IPC and Sections 5L/6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed innocence, arguing that the FIR was lodged four days after the alleged incident, there was no medical evidence, and the victim’s statement was unreliable. The State opposed bail, but did not refute the applicant’s contentions. The court examined the delay in filing the FIR, the absence of corroborative medical proof, and the applicant’s clean record, and concluded that the applicant had established a sufficient case for bail. Consequently, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence, intimidation of witnesses, and mandating appearance before the trial court.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged sexual offences under the IPC and POCSO Act despite the seriousness of the charges.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and lack of medical corroboration justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 351(3), 64, 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5L, 6
Subjects
- bail
- sexual offences
- POCSO Act
- IPC
- delay in FIR
- lack of medical evidence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42363 of 2025
Arbaz @ Arbaz Shah
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jitendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Namrata Shukla, Sanjay Kumar
Yadav
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No.29 out of 262)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Surya
Pratap Singh, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav,
learned counsel for the informant, Ms. Namrata Shukla, learned counsel for
opposite party no.4 as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 168 of 2025, under Sections 64,
351(3), 137(2), 87 BNS and 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Bilariyaganj,
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 four days and there is no explanation of the said delay
caused. The victim has stated in her statement recorded under Section 183
B.N.S.S. that she has been sexually molested by the applicant for about four
years but she did not report the matter as the applicant carried a knife. The
story as narrated by her cannot be believed. She by her looks seems to be
major although she has stated her age to be 17 years.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no
criminal history of the applicant. There is no medical corroboration of the
incident. The applicant is languishing in jail since 6.6.2025 and he is ready
BAIL No. 42363 of 2025
2
to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for
opposite party no.4 have vehemently opposed the bail application but could
not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
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- Arbaz @ Arbaz Shah, 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…