Allahabad High Court
AZIMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application is allowed.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Aziz in a case registered as Crime No. 227 of 2025, which alleged offences under Sections 64, 351(2) of the IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, and Section 67 of the IT Act. The applicant claimed innocence, stating the FIR was lodged eight years after the alleged incident, there was no medical evidence, and no indecent photographs or videos existed. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. The Court noted the delay, lack of corroborative evidence, and the applicant’s clean record, and, without expressing an opinion on the merits, found that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the eight‑year delay in filing the FIR justifies granting bail
- Whether the absence of medical corroboration and lack of indecent material affect the bail decision
- Whether the nature of the alleged offences under the IPC, POCSO Act and IT Act warrants denial of bail
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 351(2) BNS, 64
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 67
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- delay in FIR
- POCSO Act
- IPC
- IT Act
- false implication
- medical evidence
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42576 of 2025
Azim
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Radhey Shyam Tripathi, Rama Shankar
Mishra, Ramendra Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 95 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to
the informant has been served on 2.12.2025.
2. Heard Sri Rama Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as
well as Sri J.K. Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the
material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 227 of 2025, under Sections 64,
351(2) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act and 67 IT Act, Police Station Dilari,
District Moradabad, 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 about eight years and there is no explanation of the said
delay caused. The matter is between two relatives, as victim is stated to be
sister-in-law of the applicant and he did not let her marry her with someone
else after establishing corporeal relation with her. The said allegations are
false. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is nothing on
record to suggest that applicant made viral any indecent photo or video of
the victim.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no
criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since
11.11.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
BAIL No. 42576 of 2025
2
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Learned State Law Officer has 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; there being nothing on record to suggest that applicant made viral
any indecent photo or video of the victim 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- Azim, 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
verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper with
evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as
required.
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.)
May 6, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…