Allahabad High Court

GUFRAN @ RIHANversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

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

Summary

The applicant, Gufran @ Rihan, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 169 of 2025) involving alleged offences under Sections 64(2)(J), 87 and 351(3) of the IPC and Section 183 of the CrPC. The counsel argued that the FIR was false, delayed by ten days, and lacked medical corroboration, while the victim’s statement under Section 183 indicated she was a consenting party. The State opposed bail but could not refute these submissions. The court noted the delay in filing the FIR, absence of medical evidence, and the victim’s consent, and concluded that the applicant had established a case for bail. Consequently, bail was granted on personal bond and two sureties, with conditions to not tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, and appear before the trial court.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in filing the FIR and lack of medical evidence justify granting bail.
Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183, indicating consent, affects the bail decision.
Whether the applicant’s alleged innocence and lack of criminal history warrant bail during trial.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 183
Indian Penal Code — s. 351(3), 64(2)(J), 87

Subjects

bail
false FIR
victim consent
delay in FIR
medical evidence
Criminal Procedure Code
Indian Penal Code
sureties

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15217 of 2026

Gufran @ Rihan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Santosh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 13 out of 259)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant 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. 169 of 2025, under Sections
64(2)(J), 87, 351(3) BNS, Police Station Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar,
during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
allegations as made in the FIR are false. The victim is a married lady having
two children and is 27 years old. The FIR is delayed by ten days and there is
no explanation of the said delay caused.

5. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim is a consenting party as
is but evident from her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S.,
whereby she had gone with the applicant all the way to Surat and did not
raise any alarm, whatsoever, during the said sojourn. There is no medical
corroboration of the incident.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has next stated that there is no criminal
history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.6.2025
and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on
BAIL No. 15217 of 2026
2

bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could
not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.

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 delay in FIR; there being no medical corroboration of the
incident 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.

9. Let the applicant- Gufran @ Rihan, 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 6, 2026
Shalini

Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…