Allahabad High Court
CHHOTU CHAUHANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that, prima facie, the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Chhotu Chauhan, who is charged under Sections 376, 352, 342, 406, 504 and 506 of the IPC for an alleged incident in Deoria. The victim, a married woman, gave a statement under Section 183 of the BNSS indicating that she had consented and did not raise an alarm, and the FIR was filed only after she moved an application under Section 175(3) of the BNSS. No medical evidence was produced to corroborate the allegations. The court held that, on a prima facie basis, the applicant had satisfied the criteria for bail despite the seriousness of the offences. Consequently, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. The order does not prejudice the trial on the merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving serious offences including rape when the victim's statement indicates consent.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the absence of medical evidence affect the applicant's eligibility for bail.
- Whether the statements recorded under Sections 183 and 175(3) of the BNSS create a prima facie case for bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 175(3), 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 342, 352, 376, 406, 504, 506
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- consent
- rape
- delayed FIR
- medical evidence
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26120 of 2025
Chhotu Chauhan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Santosh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 128 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Vikas Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Santosh Kumar
Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhishek
Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed
on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 28 of 2025, under Sections
376, 352, 342, 406, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station - Surauli, District -
Deoria, during the pendency of trial.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that
the statement of the victim, who is a married woman, recorded u/s 183 of
BNSS prima facie indicates her consent, as she had accompanied the
applicant all the way to Raipur, Chhattisgarh, and did not raise any alarm
whatsoever. The FIR is also delayed, having been instituted only after the
victim moved an application u/s 175(3) of BNSS. Furthermore, there is no
medical evidence on record to corroborate the alleged incident.
5. 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.
6. Let the applicant- Chhotu Chauhan, be released on bail on furnishing
a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court
BAIL No. 26120 of 2025
2
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.
7. 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…