Zahid vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 20 May, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Zahid vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 20 May, 2026

Bench: Krishan Pahal





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:116815
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17143 of 2026   
 
   Zahid    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 3 Others    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Jai Shanker Malviya   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 65
 
(Sl. No. 23 out of 290)    
 
 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 30.04.2026 but none is present on behalf of the informant.

2. Heard Sri Jai Shanker Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.

3. This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 971 of 2025, under Sections 75, 65(2) of BNS and 5(m)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Civil Lines, District - Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is 73-years-old visually impaired person and has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of a dispute relating to parking in the locality, as the informant is running a fast food shop in the residential area. It is further contended that there is no cogent evidence against the applicant to establish his involvement in the alleged act of buccal coitus with the victim.

5. Learned counsel has further contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.12.2025, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has strongly opposed the bail application on the ground that there is a video of the incident showing the applicant committing the said buccal coitus with the victim, who is merely five years old, which reflects the applicant?s extreme mental depravity.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and the fact that a video appears to show the applicant committing buccal coitus with the victim, who is only five years old, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

8. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

9. However, the Trial Court is directed to decide the aforesaid case expeditiously, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.

10. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

11. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the Trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

(Krishan Pahal,J.) May 20, 2026 Siddhant

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court