Allahabad High Court
MOHARRAM @ MOHAMMAD HUSAINversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
Bail was denied to the applicant.
Summary
The applicant, Moharram @ Mohammad Husain, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 744 of 2017) involving offences under IPC sections 363, 366, 376(2)(i), 376(D), 372, 373 and sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act. He argued that he was never charge‑sheeted, that the victim had consented, he had no prior criminal record and was ready to cooperate, while the co‑accused had already been convicted. The State contended that the victim’s consent was limited to another co‑accused, that the applicant and others had trafficked and exploited the victim, and highlighted the applicant’s five‑year abscondence. The Court noted the seriousness of the charges, the conviction of co‑accused, and the applicant’s long abscondence, finding no merit in the bail plea. Consequently, the bail application was rejected and the Court directed an expeditious trial without unnecessary adjournments.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused charged with serious offences including kidnapping, rape and offences under the POCSO Act, given the conviction of co‑accused and the applicant's prior abscondence.
- Whether alleged consent of the victim negates the necessity for bail in such offences.
- Whether the absence of a charge‑sheet and a summons under Section 319 CrPC affect the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 319
- Indian Penal Code — s. 363, 366, 372, 373, 376(2)(i), 376(D)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- IPC
- rape
- kidnapping
- human trafficking
- consent
- POCSO
- abscondence
- trial expeditious
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4744 of 2025
Moharram @ Mohammad Husain
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar Srivastava, Mool Chandra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohd. Abrar Khan
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.83 out of 243)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for
the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant, Sri
Mohd. Abrar Khan, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Jai Kishan
Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material
placed on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime
No.744 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(i), 376(D), 372, 373 I.P.C.
and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Saini, District Kaushambi with the
prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant was not
charge-sheeted by the Investigating Officer, as such, he was summoned by
the trial court by invoking the powers vested in it U/s 319 Cr.P.C. vide order
dated 25.10.2019, but the applicant could not appear before the trial court, as
such, file of the applicant was separated. The other co-accused persons have
been convicted in the said case.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the victim was a
consenting party as she travelled with the co-accused person to several
places and she did not raise any alarm during the said sojourn whatsoever.
As such, the applicant is entitled to bail. There is no criminal history of the
BAIL No. 4744 of 2025
2
applicant. The applicant is in jail since 17.10.2024 and he is ready to
cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law
Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the
victim had consent regarding co-accused Sonu only, who was abroad, but
the applicant and other co-accused persons had misused their clout and had
even sold her off as a commodity, as such, the instant case is not a normal
case. The matter involves human trafficking also, as such, the applicant is
not entitled to bail.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the fact that applicant absconded for about five years and the co-accused
persons have been convicted in the present case, I do not find it a fit case for
grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits
and is, accordingly, rejected.
8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law, without granting
unnecessary adjournment to either party, if there is no legal impediment.
9. 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.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 12, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…