Allahabad High Court
SHER MOHAMMADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The bail application is allowed, and the applicant is released on bail subject to conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sher Mohammad, who was accused under several CrPC provisions and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for alleged rape. The applicant claimed innocence, alleging that the victim, with whom he had a consensual relationship, later made false accusations under parental pressure. The court noted contradictions between the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the Evidence Act, and conflicting evidence regarding her age—school records showing she was about 15 years 8 months, while a medical officer’s report suggested she was 18‑20 years old. The applicant had no prior criminal record and had been in custody for nearly a year. Weighing these factors, the court concluded that bail was appropriate, granting it subject to a personal bond, sureties, and standard conditions, without expressing any view on the merits of the underlying criminal case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged rape under the POCSO Act and relevant CrPC sections.
- Whether the victim’s age falls below 18, thereby invoking the POCSO Act.
- Whether contradictions in the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the Evidence Act affect the bail decision.
- Whether the applicant’s lack of criminal history and prolonged pre‑trial detention justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 127(3), 137(2), 65(1), 87
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 180, 183
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 6
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- consent
- age of victim
- POCSO Act
- false allegations
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Indian Evidence Act
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43465 of 2025
Sher Mohammad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aditya Kumar Kushwaha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. As per compliance affidavit filed by the State it reflects, notice has been
served to the informant on 06.03.2026. Despite service of notice none
present on behalf of informant.
2. Heard Sri Aditya Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Kunwar Tejandra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State.
3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 116 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1),
127(3) BNS and Section 6 POCSO Act, Police Station Saini, District
Kaushambi during pendency of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant is innocent and on
the basis of false allegation he has been made accused in the present matter.
He further submits, actually applicant and victim both were having love
affair and victim herself had gone along with applicant but after recovery
under threat and instigation of her parents she started making allegation of
rape against applicant.
5. He further submits, even from the statement of victim recorded under
Section 180 BNSS it reflects, she was consenting party.
6. He further submits, the statement of victim recorded under Sectionv183
BNSS is contrary to her earlier statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS
and even this statement prima facie appears to be highly improbable.
7. He next submits, as per school record victim is about 16 years old but as
BAIL No. 43465 of 2025
2
per report of CMO her age is between 18-20 years, therefore, at this stage it
cannot be said that she was below 18 years of age.
8. He next submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the
present matter he is in jail since 10.04.2025 i.e. for almost a year.
9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute
the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
11. However, as per school record, victim was about 15 years 8 months old
on the date of incident but according to the report of CMO concerned her
age was about 18-20 years.
12. Further, however, victim in her statement recorded under Section 183
BNSS made serious allegation of abduction and rape against applicant but
prima facie her statement appears to be improbable.
13. Further, however, in her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS
also victim stated that applicant against her wishes committed rape upon her
but from her medical report it reflects, at the time of her medical
examination she informed the doctor that she herself had gone along with
applicant.
14. Further, even from the FIR it reflects, victim at the time of leaving her
paternal home has also taken Rs. 25,000/- cash and golden locket, therefore,
argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that actually victim
herself had gone along with applicant but after recovery she started making
allegation against applicant in the pressure of her parents cannot be ruled
out.
15. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present
matter he is in jail since 10.04.2025 i.e. for almost a year.
16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.
BAIL No. 43465 of 2025
3
18. Let the applicant -Sher Mohammad be released on bail in the aforesaid
case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless
his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper
with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be
at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the
bail of the applicant.
20. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
March 19, 2026
AK Pandey
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…