Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Ali Siddiqui vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 ... on 10 October, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:62847
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9727 of 2025
Mohammad Ali Siddiqui
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Rehan Mubassir, Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 12
HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and Dr. Shantanu Sharma, who has filed Vakalatnama and the counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2. The Vakalatnama and the counter affidavit are taken on record.
2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.316 of 2025, under Sections 64(2)F, 351(3), 352 of BNS and Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 67 of IT Act, Police Station Dubagga, District Lucknow.
3. In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the daughter of the informant, who was studying in Class-X. She was looking scared for the last few days and would not tell anything. On 12.07.2025, at the home of the informant, a relative who is a Muslim came home and called her daughter and were stayed at her home. Subsequently, in the night, it was found that the applicant had committed wrong on her and removed her cloths and subsequently ran away. In the statement under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS, as are evident from the case diary, handed over by the learned A.G.A. across the Bar, it was stated that in the night, when parents left for sleeping and the brother and the cousin were watching T.V., the applicant came and committed wrong. The medical on record did not corroborate the allegation as the same was done after substantial delay.
4. In the light of the aforesaid facts, the Counsel for the applicant argues that the FIR was lodged after substantial delay of more than 8 days. The tentative age of the victim is around 16 years and 9 months and there being no corroboration of the alleged allegation with the medical. It is a case of consensual relationship.
5. The Counsel for the informant, on the other hand, argues that the applicant had moved an anticipatory bail, in which the statement under Section 180 and 183 were also filed, which demonstrates the clout of the applicants. My attention is also drawn to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Karnataka vs Shivanna @ Tarkari Shivanna: (2014) 5 SCR 812, wherein, general directions were given with regard to the non-disclosure of statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before a charge-sheet is filed. He further argues that in these circumstances, the bail application should be rejected.
6. Learned A.G.A. also opposed the bail prayer.
7. The contention of the Counsel for the informant is totally wrong, inasmuch as, bail is to be considered based upon the material and the liberty to which the applicant is entitled. The technicalities of getting statement from the IO contrary to the directions cannot come in the way of deciding the bail application on its own merit. In the present case, there is a substantial delay in lodging the FIR. Admittedly the applicant and the other members are relatives. No hue and cry was raised by the victim at the time of alleged incident. The medical does not corroborate any of the allegations. There is no definite documents with regard to the age of the victim and the tentative age of the victim is around 16 years 9 months.
8. Considering the abovesaid facts coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is languishing in jail since 06.09.2025, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant Mohammad Ali Siddiqui be released on bail in the abovesaid first information report number on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;
(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and
(c) 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.
(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)
October 10, 2025
akverma
