Saaud @ Sahud vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 585 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Saaud @ Sahud vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 31 March, 2026

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:66944
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10818 of 2026   
 
   Saaud @ Sahud    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 3 Others    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Anuj Kumar Gupta   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 65
 
(Sr. No.26 out of 315)   
 
 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.         

1. List has been revised. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 13.03.2026

2. Heard Sri Anuj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for applicant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.229 of 2025, under Sections 65(1), 351(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Asmauli, District Sambhal with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the allegations are false. The FIR is delayed by more than 10 hours, and there is no explanation for the said delay. The victim, by her looks, seems to be major and is 16 years and 8 months old, and is a consenting party, as is evident from the circumstances, as she did not raise any alarm at the time of the offence; rather, the other family members are stated to have reached there after hearing her shrieks. The applicant is in jail since 21.11.2025 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim has sustained injuries on her face and thorax; as such, the applicant is not entitled to bail.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the victim has sustained two injuries on her body and the FIR is prompt, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

7. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

8. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

March 31, 2026

(Ravi Kant)