Allahabad High Court

ASHISH @ PINKUversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The court held that, in view of the FIR delay, lack of identification parade and the victim’s apparent consent, the applicant was entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ashish (Pinku) in a case registered under Sections 87, 142 and 64 of the IPC. The applicant claimed innocence, arguing that the FIR was lodged two months after the alleged incident and that the victim’s statements were inconsistent and indicated consent, as she had stayed with the applicant for two months without raising alarm. The counsel highlighted the absence of a test identification parade as required under Section 7 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. The State opposed bail, but the court found the delay, lack of identification, and the victim’s conduct sufficient to create a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, the court ordered the applicant’s release on personal bond and sureties, subject to standard conditions. The bail order does not prejudice the trial on merits.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial for offences under Sections 87, 142 and 64 of the IPC.
Whether the two‑month delay in filing the FIR and the absence of a test identification parade justify granting bail.
Whether the victim’s alleged consent and conduct affect the bail determination.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam — s. 7
Indian Penal Code — s. 142, 64, 87

Subjects

bail
false implication
FIR delay
identification parade
victim consent
Indian Penal Code
Evidence Act
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15333 of 2026

Ashish @ Pinku
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Krishna Tripathi, Ram Kumar
Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.45 out of 259)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Ram Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed
on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.597 of 2025, under Sections 87,
142/64 BNS, Police Station Handiya, District Prayagraj, 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 two months and there is no explanation of the said
delay caused. The statement of victim is vacillating at different stages. At
one stage, she stated that applicant forcibly abducted her and she was
rendered unconscious and she regained consciousness during travelling in
the car and raised alarm, but nobody was there to rescue her.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the victim has
stated that she does not know the applicant, but has subsequently nominated
him, which indicates it to be a case of false implication. There is no test
identification parade conducted as per Section 7 of Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam.
BAIL No. 15333 of 2026
2

6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the said story
cannot be believed as the victim had stayed with the applicant for about two
months and she did not raise any alarm whatsoever during the said stay. The
victim is major. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since
22.10.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the
liberty of bail.

7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but the
submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be
disputed.

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 inordinate delay of two months in institution of FIR
coupled by the fact that victim seems to be a consenting party as she stayed
with the applicant for about two months and had not raised any alarm
whatsoever during the said stay, 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.

9. Let the applicant- Ashish @ Pinku, 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.

10. 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…