Allahabad High Court
AMIT @ BHURAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
Prima facie, the applicant is entitled to bail and the bail application is allowed.
Summary
The applicant, Amit (also known as Bhura), was arrested in connection with a case (Crime No. 227 of 2025) involving offences under Sections 304, 64, 352, 351(3) and 351(4) of the IPC, with the FIR lodged more than a month after the alleged incident. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, arguing that the original complaint concerned modesty outrage and theft, which was later escalated to rape after legal advice, and that there was no medical evidence to support the rape allegation. The State opposed bail, but the court noted the inordinate delay in filing the FIR, the subsequent alteration of the charge to rape, and the absence of medical corroboration, concluding that these factors created a prima facie case for bail. Without expressing an opinion on the merits of the criminal charges, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. The bail order emphasized that any breach would lead to cancellation and would not affect the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving serious IPC offences given the delay in filing the FIR and lack of medical evidence.
- Whether the alteration of the allegation from modesty outrage to rape indicates false implication warranting bail.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing, justifying denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 180, 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304, 351(3), 351(4), 352, 64
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- delay in FIR
- rape allegation
- medical evidence
- IPC sections
- CrPC sections
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15293 of 2026
Amit @ Bhura
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.35 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun
Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed
on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.227 of 2025, under Sections 304,
64, 352, 351(3), 351(4) BNS, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Banda,
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 one month and three days and there is no explanation of
the said delay caused. The allegations are per se false. Initially the
allegations were of outraging the modesty only and snatching away the
mobile. The same allegations were reiterated at the stage of recording of the
statement of victim recorded U/s 180 BNSS, but the allegations were
escalated to that of rape in her statement recorded U/s 183 BNSS after legal
consultation as an afterthought.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that there is no
medical corroboration of the incident either, as such, it is a clear cut case of
false implication. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since
10.12.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the
BAIL No. 15293 of 2026
2
liberty of bail.
6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but the
submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant could not be
disputed.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the inordinate delay in institution of FIR coupled by the fact
that allegations of rape have been raised subsequently and also there being
no medical corroboration of the incident, 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.
8. Let the applicant- Amit @ Bhura, 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.
9. 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
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…