Junaid vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

1. List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice to the informant has been served on 24.4.2026.

2. Heard Sri Ranjeet Kumar Asthana, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 348 of 2024, under Sections 87, 70(2) and 123 BNS and 9(g)/10 POCSO Act, Police Station Crossing Republic, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about two months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is nothing on record to prove that applicant spiked the cold drink or administered the victim some injections rendering her unconscious or incapable of resisting. It is a clear-cut case of false implication as there is no medical corroboration of the incident. The victim, by her physical appearance, seems to be major although her age is stated to be 14 years but there is no valid documentary evidence to suggest that she was minor.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.9.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in FIR; there being no medical corroboration of the incident; there being no evidence that applicant spiked the cold drink or administered the victim some injections rendering her unconscious and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant- Junaid, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

10. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

May 6, 2026

Shalini