Ramzan Ali v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15309 of 2026

Court No. - 65 (Sl. No. 54 out of 269) HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶1List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice to the informant has been served on 5.5.2026.

¶2Heard Sri Lalit Kumar Srivastava, 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.

¶3Applicant seeks bail in Sessions Trial No.392 of 2026, arising out of Case Crime No. 38 of 2026, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) and 3/4 POCSO Act along with 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Meja, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

¶4The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶5The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she had travelled with the applicant all the way to Tamil Nadu and stayed there and did not raise any alarm, whatsoever. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The victim, by her physical appearance, seems to be major although her age is 17 years as per educational certificate. There is no valid document to suggest that victim was minor. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lalit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ramzan Ali .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s)

¶6There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.1.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:

¶7The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by counsel for the applicant has not been opposed. CONCLUSION:

¶8Considering 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 and the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, whereby she seems to be consenting party 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.

¶9Let the applicant-Ramzan Ali, 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.

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

¶11It 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. May 14, 2026 Shalini BAIL No. 15309 of 2026 (Krishan Pahal,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad