SHAKIR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME, LUCKNOW AND 3 OTHERS
BAIL/894/2024 · 2025-10-30
Pankaj Bhatia
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 173388 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 173388 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 894 of 2024 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. 3. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No. 300 of 2023, under Sections 376 AB IPC and Sections 5M/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Mahmoodabad, District Sitapur. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that in terms of FIR it was alleged that the daughter of the informant aged about 6 years has gone alongwith the applicant, who is relative of the child, who was with his wife and subsequently he returned the victim back when she informed of stomach ache. Thereafter she was taken to hospital. It was informed that something wrong was done with her. In the light of the said allegations the applicant was implicated with the offence in question. In the light of the said allegations learned counsel for the applicant argues that all the fact witnesses including the Doctor have already been examined. My attention is drawn to the statement of the Doctor in his cross examination wherein he had stated that nothing was found wrong in the internal parts of the victim and the swelling on the private parts could be on account of injuries. He further opined that he cannot categorically state with regard to any rape being committed on the child. There is nothing on record to Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bhanu Pratap Singh, Amjad Siddiqui, Brijesh Kumar Verma, Himanshu Singh Patel, Mohd. Tariq, Omkar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Preeti Yadav Shakir .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s)
demonstrate that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, can adversely affect the trial. 5. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application. 6. Considering the statement of the Doctor coupled with the fact that all the witness have been examined, however, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the applicant who is in jail since 31.7.2023 and has no criminal history is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed. 7.
Let the applicant Shakir be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of 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. October 30, 2025 J. K. Dinkar BAIL No. 894 of 2024 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench