Allahabad High Court
BABLOO AGRAHARIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted to the applicant.
Summary
The High Court considered the bail application of Babloo Agrahari, who was charged under IPC sections 64, 123, 351(3) and 352 for allegedly raping a married woman after promising marriage and threatening her with a knife. The prosecution’s case relied on the victim’s testimony, but the FIR was filed a month after the alleged incident and there was no medical evidence to corroborate the assault. The applicant’s counsel argued that he was innocent, had no prior criminal record, and had been in custody since 11 March 2026, asserting that the delay and lack of forensic proof weakened the prosecution’s case. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and the risk of intimidation of witnesses. Weighing the delay, absence of medical proof, and the applicant’s cooperation, the Court concluded that the applicant had made out a case for bail and ordered his release on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence, intimidation, and non‑appearance. The order expressly stated that the bail decision would not prejudice the trial judge’s independent assessment of the evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a case involving alleged rape, criminal intimidation and other serious offences under IPC sections 64, 123, 351(3) and 352 despite the gravity of the charges.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the absence of medical corroboration justify granting bail.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses that would preclude bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 123, 351(3), 352, 64
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- IPC sections 64, 123, 351(3), 352
- delay in FIR
- lack of medical evidence
- sureties
- witness intimidation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14270 of 2026
Babloo Agrahari
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankur Rai, Vikalp Kumar Rai, Vivek
Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 36 out of 265)
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 19.4.2026.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken
on record.
3. Heard Sri Vivek Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as
Sri J.K. Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the material
placed on record.
4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 110 of 2026, under Sections 64,
123, 351(3), 352 BNS, Police Station Ramgarh Tal, District Gorakhpur,
during the pendency of trial.
5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have established
corporeal relationship with the victim by spiking her cold drink, on the false
promise of marriage and had later on refused to comply with the said
promise, as it was found that he was already married.
6. On 22.1.2026 at about 9.00 pm, the applicant is stated to have barged into
the house of the victim in an inebriated state and raped her and threatened
her with a knife. The minor children of the victim tried to stop him but he
ran away from the place of occurrence. The victim is the consenting party
and obviously is major as she is a married lady having two children. The fact
BAIL No. 14270 of 2026
2
that applicant promised to marry her also stands dispelled as victim herself
was a married lady.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He
has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR itself is delayed by about
one month from the date of incident. There is no medical corroboration of
the incident. The informant has converted a failed consensual physical
relationship into a criminal case.
8. Learned counsel has further stated that there is no criminal history of the
applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.3.2026 and he is ready
to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail.
9. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay in FIR and there being no medical corroboration of
the incident 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.
11. Let the applicant- Babloo Agrahari, 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 during trial.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
13. 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
BAIL No. 14270 of 2026
3
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…