Allahabad High Court
Danish Saifi vs State Of U.P. on 29 August, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:152190
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27395 of 2025
Danish Saifi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Rahul Singh Dahiya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Rahul Singh Dahiya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 307 of 2025, under Sections 318(2), 64(1), 351(3) BNS and 66D I.T. Act, Police Station-Quarsi, District-Aligarh, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have logged into the email I.D. Facebook I.D. and Instagram I.D. of the victim and has sent several messages and is stated to have called the relatives of the victim several times and threatened that he would not let the victim marry elsewhere.
5. 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 51 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The allegations have been escalated to that of rape by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS. Earlier on, she was silent about any sexual assault at the time institution of FIR, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. Victim is major aged about 23 years old. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.04.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others, AIR 1980 SC 785 has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and the contradiction in the Statement of victim recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS and the prosecution version and in view of the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 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-Danish Saifi, 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 following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
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.) August 29, 2025 Karan