Mohammad Danish vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 2722 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mohammad Danish vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 30 July, 2025

Author: Samit Gopal

Bench: Samit Gopal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:126293
 
Court No. - 64
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26194 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Mohammad Danish
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mary Puncha (Sheeb Jose),Mohd. Kalim
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
 

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Mohd. Kalim, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sabihul Akhlaq Ansari, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. Sri Sabihul Akhlaq Ansari, Advocate appearing on behalf of the first informant submits that he has filed his Vakalatnama in the office today i.e. 30.07.2025. Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record and make a note in the order-sheet.

4. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Mohammad Danish, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 167 of 2024, under Sections 65(1), 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 (2) of POCSO Act, Police Station Fatehpur, District Saharanpur.

5. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 14.08.2024 by Smt. Parveen against the applicant alleging therein that her daughter is aged about 14 years. The applicant lured her and used to talk to her. On 12.08.2024 at about 4 am he committed rape upon her and then threatened her of not disclosing it to anyone. Her daughter told her about it and then she has come to lodge a report.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that although the victim has supported the prosecution version during investigation but she was examined as P.W.-2 before the trial court in which she totally disowns the prosecution version and states that the applicant neither called her nor committed any rape upon her. She was declared hostile by the trial court. It is submitted that as such the implication of the applicant is false. It is further submitted that the first informant Smt. Parveen was examined as P.W.-1 before the trial court who although supported the prosecution version in her examination-in-chief but in her cross-examination she did not support the prosecution case. It is submitted that the Chief Medical Officer concerned has opined the age of the victim as 17 years and thus by giving benefit of two years she would be a major. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 22 of the affidavit and is in jail since 14.08.2024.

7. Learned counsel for the first informant is although present but he did not oppose the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant and also did not oppose the prayer for bail.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and arguments of learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that during investigation the victim has supported the prosecution case and the first informant has also supported the prosecution case in her examination-in-chief. It is submitted that the first informant has not been declared hostile. It is submitted that since the victim has denied the prosecution case in full and has been declared hostile, it is a fit case where directions be issued for her prosecution since she has initially supported the prosecution case during investigation and the case appears to be a case of tampering of witness. It is submitted that the victim is a minor girl aged about 17 years as per the certificate of the C.M.O. concerned.

9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the victim has disowned the prosecution version in full while being examined as P.W.-2 before the trial court. The first informant was examined as P.W.-1 who in her examination-in-chief has supported the prosecution version.

10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

11. Let the applicant- Mohammad Danish, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two suretieseach 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 prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

(ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 B.N.S.S., 2023 may be issued and if 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 209 B.N.S., 2023.

(v) 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 351 B.N.S.S., 2023. 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 B.N.S., 2023. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

12. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

13. However, it is directed that launching of prosecution against the first informant/victim be proceeded in view of para 11 of the judgment in the case of "Aman Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others" : Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41458 of 2023 dated 02.02.2024 which reads as under:

"11. ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??, ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ??????? ???????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ??, ?? ???? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ????????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ??????? ???????? ??? ?????????? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ????????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??, ??????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ??????? ??????"

14. The bail application is allowed.

15. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Order Date :- 30.7.2025

AS Rathore

(Samit Gopal,J.)