Allahabad High Court
Siraj Ahmad vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 21 November, 2025
Author: Gautam Chowdhary
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:209292
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32586 of 2025
Siraj Ahmad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Dinesh Kumar Pandey, Manu Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. Office vide its report dated 20.11.2025 has reported that notices issued to the first informant of the case has been served personally, whereas Child Welfare Committee, District Maharajganj has been served through its office. Inspite of service of notices, none appears either for the informant or for the Child Welfare Committee, District Maharajganj, even in revised reading of the list.
2. Heard Sri Manu Sharma learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasi, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire material available on record.
3. The applicant-Siraj Ahmad has filed the instant bail application with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.140 of 2025, under Sections 70(2), 74, 137(2) 127(2), 351(3) of B.N.S., Section 7/8 and 5G/6 of POSCO Act and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, Police Station Sinduriya, District Maharajganj, during the pendency of the trial.
4. The prosecution story in brief is that on 28.6.2025 the informant lodged a F..I.R., against against the named accused Siraj (applicant) and Aavir along with two other unknown persons alleging therein that on 26.6.2025 at about 6 P.M., his daughter aged about 14 years was returning from the field after sowing the crops and at a lonely place, the accused persons caught-hold of her and enraged her modesty and threw her on the ground. On alarm, the villagers reached there, thereafter the accused persons fled away.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that initially the F.I.R., was lodged with respect to outraging modesty of the victim by two named accused including the applicant and two unknown persons on 26.6.2025 at about 6 P.M. Learned counsel further argued that the first informant in his statement recorded under Section 180 of B.N.S.S., apart from reiteration of the version has also stated that the accused persons had stopped his daughter on 26.6.2025 and asked for some sexual favour which was denied by her. The incident was told by his daughter to his wife on 27.6.2025. The first informant then in his statement adds that on 25.6.2025, the accused persons caught-hold of his daughter near a brick-kiln and co-accused Sukurrullah and Riyaz Ali caught-hold of her whereas Aavir Ali Ali and Siraz (applicant) committed rape upon her, the same is an improvement in the present case and afterthought. It is further argued that the mother of the victim also reiterates the same version as given by the first informant during investigation. It is further argued that the victim during investigation states of rape being committed on her on 25.6.2025 but does not state of any further act on different dates on her. It is further argued that a video of 25.6.2025 of 8.46 p.m. and 8.47 p.m. has been given to the Investigating Officer who in the case diary has made a note that on viewing the same it transpires that the accused persons were having scuffle with the victim and were enraging her modesty. It is further argued that during investigation, Ranjeet Yadav was interrogated who states that one video was sent to him by Seraj Ahmad which he has deleted and as such there is no other video collected during investigation, thus the prosecution story is not consistent. It is further argued that the victim during her medical examination was not found to have received any injury either externally or internally. It is further argued that the victim has stated that the applicant and co-accused Aavir Ali Ali have committed rape upon her but the said fact is missing in the FIR. It is further argued that FIR has been lodged after an unexplained delay of about two days. It is thus contended that the applicant has been implicated in the present case. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 29.06.2025. Learned counsel has lastly argued that the co-accused Aavir Ali @ Aavid Ali has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28963 of 2025 (Aavir Ali @ Aavid Ali Vs. State of U.P.) and that the case of the applicant is similar to that of the accused, therefore it is contended that the applicant is also entitled for bail.
6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State has contended that there is specific allegation against the applicant . He next submits that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.
7. So far as the plea of parity taken by the counsel for the applicant is concerned, this Court of the opinion, that the plea of parity raised by an accused in seeking bail is not binding on the Court and individual offences and individual overt acts are to be assessed and not to simply follow the orders of the other accused, who are enlarged on bail and on parity grant the same. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Tarun Vs. E.D. reported in 2023 INSC, 1006 has held in paragraph no. 19 as under:-
"19. It is axiomatic that the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. However, if any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing similar wrong order. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or irregularity. If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people by any authority or by the court, without legal basis or justification, other persons could not claim as a matter of right the benefit on the basis of such wrong decision.:"
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Rakesh Kumar Pandey Vs. Munni Singh @ Mata Bux Singh @ Anr., (SlP (Crl) No. 4059/2000 decided on 12.03.201 has strongly denounced the order of High Court granting bail to the co-accused on the ground of parity in a heinous offence. It is relevant to quote the following paragraphs from the Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Pande (Supra):-
"The High Court on being moved, has considered the application for bail and without bearing in mind the relevant materials on record as well as the gravity of offence released the accused-respondents on bail, since the co-accused, who had been ascribed similar role, had been granted bail earlier." ..
"Suffice it to say that for a serious charge where three murders have been committed in broad day light, the High Court has not applied its mind to the relevant materials, and merely because some of the co-accused, whom similar role has been ascribed, have been released on bail earlier, have granted bail to the present accused respondents. It is true that State normally should have moved this Court against the order in question, but at the same time the power of this Court cannot be fettered merely because the State has not moved, particularly in a case like this, where our conscience is totally shocked to see the manner in which the High Court has exercised its power for release on bail of the accused respondents. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter as it may prejudice the accused in trial. But we have no doubt in our mind that the impugned order passed by the High Court suffers from gross illegality and is an order on total non-application of mind and the judgement of this Court referred to earlier analysing the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 439 cannot be of any use as we are not exercising power under sub-section (2) of section 439 Cr.P.C."
9. In the case of Ramesh and others Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 528 of 1998 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 4581 of 2005 (B) of Vishram) decided on 01.01.2010 , the Division Bench of this Court held that parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail. It is relevant to reproduce relevant part of the case of Ramesh and others(supra), the Division Bench of this Court has held as under:-
"In para 17 in the case of Chander @ Chandra Vs. State of U.P. (1998 U.P. Cr.R. 263), it was held that:-
"The grant of bail is not a mechanical act and principle of consistency cannot be extended to repeating a wrong order. If the order granting bail to an identically placed co-accused has been passed in flagrant violation of well settled principle, it will be open to the Judge to reject the bail application of the applicant before him as no Judge is obliged to pass orders against his conscience merely to maintain consistency."
In Special Leave Petition No. 4059 of 2000: Rakesh Kumar Pandey Vs. Munni Singh @ Mata Bux Singh and another, decided on 12.3.2001, the Hon'ble Apex Court strongly denounced the order of the High Court granting bail to the co-accused on the ground of parity in a heinous offence and while cancelling the bail granted by the High Court it observed that:-
"The High Court on being moved, has considered the application for bail and without bearing in mind the relevant materials on record as well as the gravity of offence released the accused-respondents on bail, since the co-accused, who had been ascribed similar role, had been granted bail earlier."
The Apex Court in the aforesaid case has further observed:-
"Suffice it to say that for a serious charge where three murders have been committed in broad day light, the High Court has not applied its mind to the relevant materials, and merely because some of the co-accused, whom similar role has been ascribed, have been released on bail earlier, have granted bail to the present accused respondents. It is true that State normally should have moved this Court against the order in question, but at the same time the power of this Court cannot be fettered merely because the State has not moved, particularly in a case like this, where our conscience is totally shocked to see the manner in which the High Court has exercised its power for release on bail of the accused respondents. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter as it may prejudice the accused in trial. But we have no doubt in our mind that the impugned order passed by the High Court suffers from gross illegality and is an order on total non-application of mind and the judgement of this Court referred to earlier analysing the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 439 cannot be of any use as we are not exercising power under sub-section (2) of section 439 Cr.P.C."
In the case of Salim Vs. State of U.P. 2003 ALL. L. J. 625, this Court has held that parity cannot be the sole ground for bail.
Again in the case of Zubair Vs. State of U.P. 2005(52) ACC 205, this Court observed that there is no absolute hidebound rule that bail must necessarily be granted to the co-accused, where another co-accused has been granted bail. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail."
10. In the case of Mauji Ram Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2019 (8) SCC 17, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it must appear from perusal of the order that the Court has applied its mind to the relevant facts in the light of material filed by the prosecution at the time of consideration of bail application. Paragraph 13 of the judgment in Mauji Ram (supra) is being reproduced as under:-
"13. Time and again this Court has emphasized the need for assigning the reasons while granting bail (see Ajay Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 507, Lokesh Singh vs. State of U.P. & Anr., (2008) 16 SCC 753 & Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. & Anr., (2018) 3 SCC 22). Though it may not be necessary to give categorical finding while granting or rejecting the bail for want of full evidence adduced by the prosecution as also by the defence at that stage yet it must appear from a perusal of the order that the Court has applied its mind to the relevant facts in the light of the material filed by the prosecution at the time of consideration of bail application. It is unfortunate that neither the law laid down by this Court, nor the material filed by the prosecution was taken note of by the High Court while considering the grant of bail to the respondents"
11. I, therefore proceed to consider the bail application of the applicant on its own merits.
12. In the case of Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs. State of Maharashtra, (2018)11 SCC 458, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary to consider the factors such as; a) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, b) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant and c) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.
13. In Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018)12 SCC 129, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following relevant consideration while granting bail, in paragraph 17 which is being reproduced as under:-
"While granting bail, the relevant considerations are:- (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. No doubt, this list is not exhaustive. There are no hard and fast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be considered on its own merits. The matter always calls for judicious exercise of discretion by the Court."
14. In the present case, the heinous offence has been committed against society. Gang rape has been committed upon a minor as the victim's date of birth has been recorded in the school record as 05.01.2011. Furthermore the medical report also shows that there is a penetration and in the opinion of the doctor sexual assault cannot be ruled out. Apart from the same, the victim has also levelled specific allegation of rape against the applicant in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of B.N.S.S. There are prima facie and reasonable grounds to believe the complicity of the applicant in commission of offence.
15. Keeping in view submissions of learned counsel for the parties, gravity of offence, nature of allegations and all the attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused-applicant. Thus taking into consideration that heinous offence has been committed against the society, therefore the applicant does not deserve any indulgence by this Court.
16. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected.
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
November 21, 2025
S.Ali
