Allahabad High Court

TANVEERversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and granted bail subject to conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Tanveer, accused in a case under Sections 352, 351(2) and 64(1) of the Indian Penal Code for alleged assault and rape. The applicant claimed innocence, citing a 15‑day delay in filing the FIR, absence of medical evidence, no recovery of alleged nude photographs, and a victim statement under Section 183 indicating consent. The victim, a 22‑year‑old, had previously met the applicant voluntarily. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. Weighing the delay, lack of corroborative evidence, the victim’s statement, and the applicant’s clean record, the court concluded that the applicant had established a case for bail and ordered his release on personal bond and sureties with standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a case of alleged assault and rape when the FIR is delayed and there is no medical or photographic evidence.
Whether the victim's statement under Section 183 indicating consent negates the seriousness of the alleged offences for bail purposes.
Whether the applicant's lack of prior criminal history and willingness to cooperate justify bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 183
Indian Penal Code — s. 351(2), 352, 64(1)

Subjects

bail
false implication
delay in FIR
lack of medical evidence
consent
Indian Penal Code
Section 183
criminal trial

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15141 of 2026

Tanveer
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Keshari Nath Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 29 out of 205)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Pushpendra Vishwakarma, learned Advocate holding brief for
Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant 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. 72 of 2026, under Sections 352,
351(2), 64(1) BNS, Police Station Civil Line, District Moradabad, 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 FIR is delayed by 15 days and there is no explanation of
the said delay caused.

5. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement
recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she has stated that she had
gone at the calling of the applicant to the house of his friend and had earlier
on also, met him at a restaurant. There is allegation in the FIR that applicant
had raped the victim and clicked her nude photos. There is no recovery of
any photo of the victim, whatsoever. There is no medical corroboration of
the incident either.

6. The victim is major being 22 years old as per ossification test report.
BAIL No. 15141 of 2026
2

7. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing
in jail since 11.2.2026 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 State Law Officer has opposed the bail application but could not
dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned 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; there being no recovery of any photograph of the victim and 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.

10. Let the applicant- Tanveer, 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…