Allahabad High Court
ROHITversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as he has made out a case for bail despite his criminal history.
Summary
Rohit applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 432 of 2025) under Sections 87, 351(3) and 64 of the B.N.S.S. The victim’s statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. indicated that she had consented to travel with the applicant, suggesting the alleged offence may be based on a consensual relationship. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated and that his prior criminal history was explained, while the State opposed bail. The court observed that an accused’s antecedents alone cannot justify continued detention if bail criteria are otherwise satisfied. Considering the victim’s consent, the applicant’s cooperation, and the explained criminal history, the court granted bail with personal bond and sureties, subject to conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused with prior criminal cases when the present charge involves alleged consent.
- Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. indicating consent affects the bail decision.
- Whether criminal antecedents preclude the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 183, 64
- Indian Penal Code — s. 351(3), 87
Subjects
- bail
- criminal antecedents
- consent
- Section 183
- sureties
- trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14245 of 2026
Rohit
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mrityunjay Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 34 out of 265)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Mrityunjay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri J.K.
Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 432 of 2025, under Sections 87,
351(3), 64 BNS, Police Station Gaunda, District Aligarh, during the
pendency of trial.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
4. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from the
circumstances she mentioned in her statement recorded under Section 183
B.N.S.S., whereby she has stated that she alongwith two daughters was
forcibly taken by the applicant on a motorcycle. She travelled with the
applicant and did not raise any alarm, whatsoever. The informant has
converted a failed consensual physical relationship into a criminal case. The
victim is major being a married lady having two children.
5. There is a criminal history of three cases assigned to the applicant, which
stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.3.2026 and he
is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he
BAIL No. 14245 of 2026
2
will not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
6. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties could not be disputed.
CONCLUSION:
7. This Court is of the view that if a case for bail is otherwise made out,
an accused cannot be kept incarcerated solely on account of his criminal
antecedents. In the instant case, the criminal history assigned to the
applicant has been properly explained.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration 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.
9. Let the applicant- Rohit, 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.
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.)
May 7, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…