Allahabad High Court

SHARUKHversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 8 September 2026
Bench: YOGESH DUBEY JOINT REGISTRAR JUDICIAL

Holding

The court held that the applicant’s lack of criminal history, the delay in filing the FIR, and the absence of corroborative medico‑legal evidence make the case fit for bail under Section 483 BNS.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed on behalf of Shahrukh, who is accused of rape under Sections 64(1) and 351(3) BNS. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, the FIR was lodged three days after the incident, independent witnesses reported a family quarrel, and the victim's medico‑legal report did not support the rape allegation; he also has no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail, citing the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNS that the applicant committed rape. After reviewing the facts and noting the delay in FIR, lack of corroborative medical evidence, and the applicant’s clean record, the court found the case suitable for bail without expressing an opinion on the merits. The court ordered the release of the applicant on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses. The bail was granted subject to compliance with the stipulated conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to a person accused of rape pending trial.
Whether the three‑day delay in filing the FIR and the absence of supporting medico‑legal evidence justify the grant of bail.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses that would preclude bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 180, 183, 351(3), 483, 64(1)

Subjects

bail
rape allegation
false implication
medico‑legal report
delay in FIR
witness intimidation
Section 483 BNS
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28305 of 2026

Sharukh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amir Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ahamad Farhan, G.A., Haya Rizvi

Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Amir Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rahul
Gaur, Advocate, holding brief of Ms. Haya Rizvi, learned counsel for the
first informant, Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasiya, State Law Officer for the
State-respondents and perused the record.

3. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a
prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 426 of 2026 under
Sections 64(1), 351(3) BNS registered at Police Station Kotwali Dehat,
District Bulandshahar during pendency of the trial.

4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is
younger brother-in-law of the victim who has been falsely implicated in
the present case and the FIR has been lodged after delay of three days by
the brother of the victim. It is further submitted that some independent
witnesses have stated before the Investigating Officer that when they
reached the house of the applicant in the morning of 08.6.2026, they came
to know that some quarrel had taken place between the applicant and the
victim in the last night and the family members of the applicant were
scolding him and the victim was weeping in a separate room. It is further
submitted that medico-legal report of the victim does not support the
allegation of commission of rape on her. It is further submitted that
applicant, who has no criminal history, has been languishing in jail since
BAIL No. 28305 of 2026
2

24.6.2026 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.
It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases
in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the
first informant opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and
submit that victim in her statements recorded under sections 180 and 183
BNSS has categorically stated that applicant committed rape on her and
there is no reason for false implication of the applicant.

6. FIR has been lodged after delay of three days by the brother of the
victim alleging therein that applicant committed rape on the victim who is
his sister-in-law. Some independent witnesses have stated before the
Investigating Officer that when they heard some commotion in the house
of the applicant in the morning of 08.6.2026, they came to know that
some quarrel had taken place between the applicant and the victim in the
last night and the family members of the applicant were scolding him and
the victim was weeping in a separate room. However, medico-legal report
of the victim does not support the allegation of commission of rape on
her. Applicant, who has no criminal history, has been languishing in jail
since 24.6.2026.

7. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected
from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I
find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is
ALLOWED.

8. Let the applicant Shahrukh involved in the aforesaid case crime be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with
two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court
concerned with the following conditions :-

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
BAIL No. 28305 of 2026
3

witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)
recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not
seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses
are present in the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

10. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose
of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed
as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be
absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of
evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
September 9, 2026
Madhurima

Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…