Mohd. Umar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State. None appears on behalf of the complainant, although, as per the instructions of learned AGA, notice to the complainant is served.

2. A supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the earlier bail application filed under Sections 87, 137(2), 70(2), 351(3) of the B.N.S., 2023, Sections 5G and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), and 3(2)(5A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was rejected on 17.07.2025 by the learned Sessions Court. Consequently, the bail application has also been rejected under the subsequently added Sections 3(1)(Ba) and 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act vide order dated 05.08.2025, copy of which is on record as annexure No.SA-1.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for permission to carry out necessary correction/amendment in the memo of bail application by adding Sections 3(1)(Ba) and 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act, which could not be incorporated at the time of filing.

5. In view of the request made by learned counsel for the applicant, he is permitted to make necessary corrections in the memo of the bail 2 BAIL No. 8160 of 2025 application during the course of the day.

6. Since the offences alleged are under both the SC/ST Act as well as the POCSO Act, this Court, in view of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Rinku v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33075 of 2018, proceeds to decide the present bail application.

7. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 23.01.2025 at about 10:00 p.m., the informant’s daughter, aged about 18 years, was enticed away by co-accused Mohd. Sharif, with whom she had been in telephonic contact for the past two years. Co-accused Mohd. Sharif also gave a mobile phone to the daughter of the informant.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The victim reiterated the version narrated in the FIR in her statement under Section 180 BNSS. However, while recording her statement under Section 183 BNSS, she made improvements for the first time by naming the applicant and alleging rape. The victim was medically examined, but no external or internal injuries were found. As per the ossification test, the victim is 18 years old and, therefore, a major. It is further submitted that the applicant, having no criminal antecedents, is in custody since 18.06.2025. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

9. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

10. Considering the improvements made by the victim in her statement under Section 183 BNSS, the fact that the victim is a major as per radiological examination, coupled with the circumstance applicant, with no criminal antecedents, is in custody since 18.06.2025, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for granting bail to the applicant.

11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 3 BAIL No. 8160 of 2025

12. Let the applicant Umran @ Mohd. Umar involved in Case Crime No. 19 of 2025 under Sections 87, 137(2), 70(2), 351 (3) of B.N.S., 2023, 5G. 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3 (1) Da, 3(1) Dha, 3 (1) Ba, 3(2)5, 3 (2) 5A of the S.C. and S.T. Act, 1989 Kunda, registered at the Police Station District Pratapgarh, 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law. (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

13. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. September 2, 2025/R.C. (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State. None appears on behalf of the complainant, although, as per the instructions of learned AGA, notice to the complainant is served.

2. A supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the earlier bail application filed under Sections 87, 137(2), 70(2), 351(3) of the B.N.S., 2023, Sections 5G and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), and 3(2)(5A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was rejected on 17.07.2025 by the learned Sessions Court. Consequently, the bail application has also been rejected under the subsequently added Sections 3(1)(Ba) and 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act vide order dated 05.08.2025, copy of which is on record as annexure No.SA-1.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for permission to carry out necessary correction/amendment in the memo of bail application by adding Sections 3(1)(Ba) and 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act, which could not be incorporated at the time of filing.

5. In view of the request made by learned counsel for the applicant, he is permitted to make necessary corrections in the memo of the bail 2 BAIL No. 8160 of 2025 application during the course of the day.

6. Since the offences alleged are under both the SC/ST Act as well as the POCSO Act, this Court, in view of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Rinku v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33075 of 2018, proceeds to decide the present bail application.

7. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 23.01.2025 at about 10:00 p.m., the informant’s daughter, aged about 18 years, was enticed away by co-accused Mohd. Sharif, with whom she had been in telephonic contact for the past two years. Co-accused Mohd. Sharif also gave a mobile phone to the daughter of the informant.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The victim reiterated the version narrated in the FIR in her statement under Section 180 BNSS. However, while recording her statement under Section 183 BNSS, she made improvements for the first time by naming the applicant and alleging rape. The victim was medically examined, but no external or internal injuries were found. As per the ossification test, the victim is 18 years old and, therefore, a major. It is further submitted that the applicant, having no criminal antecedents, is in custody since 18.06.2025. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

9. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

10. Considering the improvements made by the victim in her statement under Section 183 BNSS, the fact that the victim is a major as per radiological examination, coupled with the circumstance applicant, with no criminal antecedents, is in custody since 18.06.2025, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for granting bail to the applicant.

11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 3 BAIL No. 8160 of 2025

12. Let the applicant Umran @ Mohd. Umar involved in Case Crime No. 19 of 2025 under Sections 87, 137(2), 70(2), 351 (3) of B.N.S., 2023, 5G. 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3 (1) Da, 3(1) Dha, 3 (1) Ba, 3(2)5, 3 (2) 5A of the S.C. and S.T. Act, 1989 Kunda, registered at the Police Station District Pratapgarh, 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law. (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

13. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. September 2, 2025/R.C. (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench