Allahabad High Court
TARIQ ANSARIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application is dismissed as the trial is at its conclusive stage and the victim is a minor who sustained injuries, rendering the case unsuitable for bail.
Summary
The applicant, Tariq Ansari, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No.248 of 2024) involving charges under IPC Section 333, Section 65(2) of the B.N.S., and Sections 5M and 6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant argued that the victim’s statement contained material contradictions, that the alleged incident occurred far from the victim’s usual shop, and that there was no risk of flight or evidence tampering. The State opposed bail, emphasizing that the victim is an eight‑year‑old girl who sustained injuries to a vital part of her body and that the offence involves extreme mental depravity. The trial court’s status report indicated that prosecution evidence was complete, eleven witnesses had been examined, and the trial was at its conclusive stage. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the minor victim’s condition, and the advanced stage of trial, the High Court rejected the bail application, directing the trial court to dispose of the case expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused charged under IPC 333, B.N.S. 65(2), and POCSO Act 5M,6 when the trial is at its conclusive stage and the victim is a minor with serious injuries.
- Whether alleged contradictions in the victim’s statement and the distance of the alleged incident from the victim’s usual place affect the grant of bail.
- Whether the accused poses a risk of flight or tampering with evidence warranting bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 65(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 333
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5M, 6
Subjects
- bail
- IPC 333
- B.N.S. 65(2)
- POCSO Act
- minor victim
- trial stage
- flight risk
- evidence tampering
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8096 of 2025
Tariq Ansari
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ambreen Masroor, Gufran Ahmad
Khan, Sadrul Islam Jafri, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.46 out of 243)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Learned State Law Officer has informed that notice
to the informant has been served on 21.2.2025.
2. Heard Ms. Samara Ushmani, learned counsel for applicant, 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.248 of 2024, under Sections 333, 65(2) B.N.S. and Section 5M, 6
POCSO Act, Police Station Ushait, District Budaun with the prayer to
enlarge him on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there are material
contradiction in the statement of victim recorded during trial. She has
categorically stated that the shop, where she used to visit, is far away from
the place of occurrence. The witnesses of fact have already been examined,
as such, there is no likelihood of applicant tampering with evidence. He is
not a flight risk. It is true that the FIR is prompt, but it is a clear cut case of
false implication. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant
is in jail since 7.10.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the
applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail
application on the ground that victim has sustained injuries on the vital part
BAIL No. 8096 of 2025
2
of the body. The victim is a tender girl of 08 years old. The act of the
applicant falls within the category of extreme mental depravity. The trial is
also at its conclusive end, as such, the applicant is not entitled to bail.
6. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned trial
court. As per the status report dated 17.4.2026, the prosecution evidence is
complete. Eleven witnesses have already been examined, and even the
arguments in the matter were heard. However, the defence counsel moved an
application before the trial court, and after the disposal of said application,
the arguments shall again be heard, and the case shall be disposed of.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the fact that trial is at its conclusive end and also taking into account the age
of victim being about 08 years and she having sustained injuries on her vital
part of the body, 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…