Allahabad High Court
KAMLESHversusSTATE OF U.P. THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME GOV. OF U.P. AT LUCKNOW
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that, prima facie, the applicant had made out a case for bail and therefore granted bail subject to conditions.
Summary
Kamlesh was charged in Crime No. 286 of 2026 for offences under Sections 333, 64(2)k, 115(2) and 351(3) of the BNS, alleged to have raped a married woman. The FIR was lodged two days after the alleged incident, and the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS suggested she had consented, claiming the complaint was made only after her aunt saw her in a compromising position. The applicant’s counsel argued that the delay and the victim’s alleged consent warranted bail. The court noted the two‑day FIR delay and the victim’s statement but, without passing on the merits, found a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Does a two‑day delay in lodging the FIR preclude the grant of bail?
- Does the victim’s statement indicating consent affect the bail eligibility for the alleged rape offences?
- Can bail be granted pending trial under the cited sections of the BNS?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- FIR delay
- consent
- criminal procedure
- Section 183
- Section 333
- Section 64(2)k
- Section 115(2)
- Section 351(3)
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16379 of 2026
Kamlesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Home
Gov. Of U.P. At Lucknow .....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dwijendra Prasad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 7 out of 269)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Dwijendra Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material
placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 286 of 2026, under Sections
333, 64(2)k, 115(2), 351(3) of BNS, Police Station - Shikohabad,
District - Firozabad, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR was lodged with
a delay of two days, for which no plausible explanation has been
furnished. It is further contended that the victim is a married lady and, in
her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, she appears to be a
consenting party, inasmuch as she has stated that the applicant committed
rape upon her and, on her raising an alarm, her aunt reached the spot, the
circumstance suggests that the report was lodged only after she was seen
by her aunt in a compromising position with the applicant.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that there
is a delay of two days in lodging the FIR. The victim is a married lady
and, from her statement under Section 183 BNSS, she appears, at this
stage, to be a consenting party, as the circumstances prima facie indicate
that the matter was reported only after she was seen by her aunt in a
BAIL No. 16379 of 2026
2
compromising position with the applicant.
6. 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.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Kamlesh, 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 14, 2026
Siddhant
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…