Nirahu Alias Suleman vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

1. List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A. / learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 10.10.2026.

2. Heard Sri Sumit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra Prasad, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 244 of 2025, under Sections 65(2) BNS and section 5m/6 POCSO Act Police Station Gorakhnath, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.

4. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is further argued that, although the victim is a girl of tender age aged about 9 years but the present case is a clear-cut case of false implication. There is no medical corroboration of the alleged incident and even the medical report supports the innocence of the applicant.

5. It is further submitted that PW-1/Tahira Khatoon has been examined during trial and she has supported the prosecution story in examination-in-chief, but has resiled from his earlier statements and has been cross-examined by the public prosecutor after declaring her hostile. There is no likelihood of conviction in the present case under the circumstances. The fundamental rights of the applicant as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.5.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

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

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that the P.W.1 turned hostile, 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.

9. Let the applicant- Nirahu @ Suleman, 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.

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

11. 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 7, 2026

Sushma