Allahabad High Court
NEERAJversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
Bail is granted as the applicant is prima facie entitled to it.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Neeraj in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15237 of 2026, arising from Crime No. 05 of 2026 under IPC sections 64(1) and 333. The applicant asserted his innocence, highlighted an eight‑day delay in filing the FIR, and pointed out that the alleged victim – a married adult woman – had given a consent statement under Section 183. The State opposed bail but did not rebut the applicant’s submissions. After reviewing the record, the court noted the victim’s consent, the FIR delay, and the applicant’s clean criminal record, and held that prima facie the applicant was entitled to bail. Accordingly, the court ordered his release on a personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions, without affecting the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the alleged victim has consented and the FIR was delayed
- Whether the applicant’s clean record and lack of flight risk justify bail
- Whether the State’s opposition is sufficient to deny bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 183, 333, 64(1)
Subjects
- bail
- consent
- FIR delay
- Indian Penal Code
- section 64
- section 333
- section 183
- criminal procedure
- sureties
- trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15237 of 2026
Neeraj
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Alok Ranjan Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.19 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Alok Ranjan Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jai
Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the
material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.05 of 2026, under Sections 64(1),
333 BNS, 2023, Police Station Baraur, District Kanpur Dehat, 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
FIR is delayed by about 8 days, and there is no explanation for the said
delay. The victim is a consenting party, as is evident from her statement
recorded under Section 183 BNSS, wherein she has alleged fear that the
applicant might discontinue the relationship as he is likely to marry. The
victim is a married lady, obviously she is major. The applicant has no
criminal history and is in jail since 28.01.2026. He undertakes to cooperate
with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application
but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
BAIL No. 15237 of 2026
2
consideration the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183
B.N.S.S., which indicates her consent, and without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the
applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Neeraj, be released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to
verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not tamper with
evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as
required.
8. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…