Allahabad High Court
USMANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court allowed the bail application, granting bail to the accused.
Summary
The accused, Usman, applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 161 of 2025) involving alleged offences under Sections 64, 352 and 351(3) of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant claimed innocence, arguing that the FIR was filed five days after the incident without any explanation and that there was no medical evidence to support the victim's claim. The victim, a 19‑year‑old woman, had lodged the FIR herself. The State opposed bail, but the court noted the delay in filing and the absence of medical corroboration, finding a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused given the delay in filing the FIR and lack of medical evidence
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 351(3), 352, 64
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- FIR delay
- medical evidence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23241 of 2025
Usman
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Singh Yadav, Dhirendra Babu
Mishra, Kuldip Singh Yadav, Ravindra
Kumar Mishra, Vishvajit Tiwari,
Yogesh Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhishek Shukla, G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.58 out of 205)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Kuldeep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Abhishek Shukla, learned counsel for the informant as well as Ms. Ifrah
Islam, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material
placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.161 of 2025, under Sections 64,
352, 351(3) BNS, Police Station Kaarari, District Kaushambi, 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 five days and there is no explanation of the said
delay caused. The victim is major aged about 19 years and she herself
instituted the FIR. There is no medical corroboration of the incident, as such,
it is a clear cut case of false implication. The applicant has no criminal
history and is in jail since 10.5.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the
trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have
vehemently opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the
BAIL No. 23241 of 2025
2
learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay in institution of FIR coupled by the fact that there is
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.
7. Let the applicant- Usman, 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 5, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…