Allahabad High Court
DEEPAK GURJARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the delay in filing the FIR, lack of medical evidence, and the applicant’s clean record outweighed the seriousness of the charges, justifying the grant of bail.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Deepak Gurjar, who was charged under IPC sections 363 (kidnapping), 376 (rape), 328 (extortion) and POCSO Act sections 3 and 4. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, the FIR was lodged six days after the alleged incident, and there was no medical evidence supporting the rape allegation, which only appeared in the victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s claim of a clean criminal record. Weighing the seriousness of the offences against the delay in filing the FIR, lack of corroborative medical evidence, and the applicant’s lack of prior convictions, the court found the case fit for bail. Consequently, the court ordered the release of the applicant on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving serious offences such as kidnapping, rape, extortion and POCSO violations.
- Whether the six‑day delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of medical corroboration justify granting bail.
- Whether the applicant’s alleged false implication and clean criminal record warrant bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161, 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 328, 363, 376
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- IPC
- POCSO Act
- false implication
- FIR delay
- medical evidence
- witness tampering
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22965 of 2025
Deepak Gurjar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Devendra Kumar, Romeshwari Prasad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 99 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned AGA, notice to the
informant has been served on 12.06.2025 but none is present on behalf of
the informant.
2. Heard Sri Romeshwari Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the
material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 324 of 2024, under Sections
363, 376, 328 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station -
Sahibabad, District - Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about
six days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
5. Learned counsel has further stated that the FIR was instituted after
returning of the victim to her home and pertained only to elopement. It
contains no allegation against the applicant, but subsequently, in the
victim's statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.,
allegations of rape have been foisted as an afterthought. It is further stated
that there is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no criminal
history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 08.05.2024. In case,
the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and
BAIL No. 22965 of 2025
2
shall cooperate with trial.
6. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application
but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the
applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, severity of
punishment and also considering the inordinate delay of six days in
lodging the FIR and that the allegations of rape have subsequently been
introduced in the statements of victim recorded u/s 161 & 164
Cr.P.C. coupled by the fact that there being no medical corroboration of
the incident, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.
The bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant- Deepak Gurjar, 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.)
April 23, 2026
Siddhant
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…