Shahjad @ Shahjan Khan vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Ajay Kumar Maurya, Anushka Bhardwaj, Daya Shankar Vishwakarama, G.A. Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Case called out in the revised list. Learned counsel for informant is not present. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. 3. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 30 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 331, 75(2) B.N.S., 7/8 POCSO Act and Section 67A Information and Technology Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Meerut, during the pendency of the trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is major. The age of the victim was incorrectly got registered in the school records by the victim's parents to give her advantage in life. There is no lawful basis for the age related entry of the victim in the school record disclosing her age and the entries made are unbelievable. As per the statement of victim under Section 183 BNSS, the applicant and the victim were in consensual relationship for a considerable period of time, the alleged photographs of the applicant and the victim were uploaded on social media by the victim herself. It is next contended that as per the medical report of the son of the informant, he received a single injury, which was simple in nature. Further, there is no allegation of any indecent behavior or forceful assault against the applicant. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 19 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 07.02.2026 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that as per the statement of the victim under Section 183 BNSS, the applicant and the victim were in consensual relationship for a considerable period of time, the alleged photographs of the applicant and the victim were uploaded on social media by the victim herself. The son of the informant received a single injury, which was found simple in nature. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than three months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. Let the applicant- Shahjad @ Shahjan Khan involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and, (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. (Vivek Varma,J.) May 6, 2026 v.k. updh.