Gulfan Vaheed Sha v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Maurya and Sri Kunwar Abhishek, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 35 of 2025, U/S 137(2), 87, 65(1) B.N.S. and 5J(2)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Mauranipur, District Jhansi, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

The applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant on 31.1.2025 at about 6.00 am. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT:

The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. He has nothing to do with the said offence.

The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

The victim is the consenting party, as is evident from the fact that she had travelled to several places with the applicant and the said journey culminated at Mumbai, Maharashtra and she had not raised any alarm, whatsoever.

The victim by her looks, seems to be major. The victim and the applicant had solemnized marriage (nikah) which is evident from the photographs annexed.

There is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is a criminal history of four cases assigned to the applicant, which stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.2.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE:

The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the victim was minor as per school certificate, as such, her consent, if any, cannot be taken into consideration in the eyes of law. The said act of the applicant to annex the photograph of the victim is deprecated. CONCLUSION:

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the delay in institution of FIR and there being no medical corroboration of the incident, 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. involved in 14. Let the applicant- Gulfan Vaheed Sha aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

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.

Counsels for the applicant shall deposit a cost of Rs. 1,000/- before the High Court Legal Service Committee, within a period of one week from today. Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad