Allahabad High Court
FURKANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail and allowed the bail application.
Summary
Furkan applied for bail in a case (Crime No. 23 of 2026) under Sections 69, 87 and 351(3) of the BNS, alleging he had enticed the informant's daughter with a false promise of marriage and subsequently refused to marry her. The prosecution alleged a consensual relationship that turned criminal, but the FIR was filed 25 days after the alleged incident and 23 days after the victim returned home, with no medical evidence to corroborate the claim. The applicant argued that the delay and lack of forensic proof indicated false implication, and that he had no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail but did not refute the applicant’s submissions. The Court, noting the FIR delay, absence of medical corroboration, and lack of compelling evidence, concluded that the applicant had made out a case for bail and ordered his release on personal bond and sureties, subject to conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case under Sections 69, 87 and 351(3) of the BNS given the delay in filing the FIR and lack of medical evidence.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 351(3), 69, 87
Subjects
- bail
- delay in FIR
- lack of medical evidence
- false promise of marriage
- Sections 69, 87, 351(3) BNS
- criminal procedure
- sureties
- trial court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15060 of 2026
Furkan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhinav Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 13 out of 205)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Abhinav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ankur Singh,
learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 23 of 2026, under Sections 69, 87, 351(3)
of BNS, Police Station Shahpur, District Muzaffarnagar, during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The applicant is stated to have enticed away the daughter of the informant aged
about 23 years on 27.12.2025 and she is stated to have come back on 29.12.2025. The
applicant is stated to have established corporeal relation with her on the false promise
of marriage but subsequently refused to comply with the said promise.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present
case. The FIR is delayed by about twenty-five days from the initiation of crime and
about twenty-three days from the date when the victim had returned to her home and
there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Only a false explanation has been
created by the informant stating that applicant and his brother threatened him of dire
consequences if he lodges the FIR.
6. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no clinching evidence to
suggest that the applicant misled the victim from the beginning. The informant has
BAIL No. 15060 of 2026
2
converted a failed consensual physical relationship into a criminal case.
7. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail
since 15.2.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
8. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application but could not dispute the
submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
CONCLUSION:
9. 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; there being no medical corroboration of the incident and there being no clinching
evidence to suggest that the applicant misled the victim from the beginning 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.
10. Let the applicant- Furkan, 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.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
12. 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 5, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…