The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, presided over by Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha, has allowed a bail application in an alleged sexual offence case, holding that the applicant is entitled to release in light of material contradictions in the victim’s statutory statements and the absence of any risk of tampering with evidence, as the victim had already deposed before the trial court.
Background of the Case
The applicant, Ashfaq alias Muse, approached the High Court seeking regular bail in connection with Case Crime No. 53 of 2026, registered at Police Station Ramnagar, District Varanasi. The criminal proceedings were initiated under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(2), and 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Sections 5M/6 and 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
According to the allegations set out in the First Information Report (FIR), the applicant was accused of having sexually harassed and outraged the modesty of the victim, a minor girl aged about 7 years. The applicant had been in custody since March 7, 2026. Notice of the bail proceedings was duly served upon the first informant.
Submissions of the Parties
Appearing on behalf of the applicant, counsels Chaman Aara and Shabista Parveen (with Shabista Parveen arguing the plea) submitted that the applicant had been falsely implicated in the case. It was contended that there were significant and material contradictions between the statements of the victim recorded under Section 180 and Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), pointing out that the victim in her statements had not stated anything regarding her disrobement. Furthermore, counsel submitted that because the victim had already been examined before the trial court, there remained no possibility of tampering with evidence. Highlighting that the applicant had no criminal history and had been languishing in jail since March 7, 2026, counsel gave an assurance that the applicant would not misuse the liberty of bail and would fully cooperate in the trial proceedings.
Opposing the plea, learned Additional Government Advocate Shiv Dutt Shukla, appearing for the State, alongside Utkarshni Singh, learned counsel representing the High Court Legal Services Committee, vehemently contested the grant of bail. They submitted that the victim was a minor girl aged about 7 years and emphasized that in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, she had stated that the applicant disrobed her.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Evaluating the record, Justice Sinha took note of the nature of the allegations alongside the evidence gathered. The Court explicitly observed:
“As per the allegation in the FIR, the applicant is said to have sexually harassed the victim and outraged her modesty aged about 07 years, however, there appears to material contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS.”
Addressing the issue of witness interference and incarceration, the Court recorded:
“The victim has already been examined before the trial court, therefore, there is no chance of tampering of evidence. The applicant has been languishing in jail since 7.3.2026 and he is having no criminal history.”
In balancing the overall circumstances, the Court also took judicial notice of institutional realities, referencing “overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts.” In determining entitlement to bail, the Court cited and applied the mandate of the Supreme Court of India in Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation (2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038) and the guidelines framed by the Allahabad High Court in Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. (2024 SCC Online All 6765). Clarifying that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court held that a case for enlargement on bail had been made out.
The Decision and Directions
The High Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
The enlargement on bail was subjected to the following mandatory conditions:
- The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing facts to the court or police, nor shall he tamper with evidence.
- The applicant shall cooperate sincerely in the trial and investigation without seeking adjournments.
- The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after release.
- The applicant shall attend proceedings in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed.
The Court held that any breach of these conditions would serve as a ground for cancellation of bail. It further directed the trial court to verify the identity, status, residence proof, mobile number, and Aadhaar card of both the applicant and the sureties before accepting the bonds.
To avoid unnecessary delay in release, the High Court directed the trial court to transmit the release order to the concerned prison through the Bail Order Management System (BOMS). In addition, the Court Registry was directed to transmit a copy of the order to the applicant through the concerned Jail Superintendent via e-mail or the e-prison portal within 24 hours, in compliance with the Supreme Court’s directives in In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2021).
Case Title: Ashfaq @ Muse Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15354 of 2026
Bench: Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha
Date: October 1, 2026
