Allahabad High Court
VIVEKversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that prima facie the applicant made out a case for bail and therefore granted bail.
Summary
Vivek, a 20‑year‑old accused, applied for bail in a case registered under Sections 64(1), 77, 352 and 351(3) of the Indian Penal Code. He claimed innocence, argued that the FIR was lodged 15 days after the alleged incident without any explanation, and that no indecent photographs or video of the 24‑year‑old victim were recovered. The State and the informant opposed bail, but the court noted the delay in filing the FIR and the absence of material evidence. Without passing on the merits, the court found that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Sections 64(1), 77, 352 and 351(3) of the IPC considering the 15‑day delay in filing the FIR and the lack of recovered indecent photographs or video.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 351(3), 352, 64(1), 77
Subjects
- bail
- delay in FIR
- indecent photographs
- Indian Penal Code
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29725 of 2026
Vivek
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rahul Mehrotra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Hari Prakash Mishra
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.48 out of 80 T.C.)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Rahul Mehrotra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Hari
Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Yogesh
Mishra, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material
placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.97 of 2026, under Sections 64(1),
77, 352, 351(3) BNS, Police Station Bagwala, District Etah, 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 15 days and there is no explanation of the said delay
caused. The allegations are per se false and there is no recovery of any
indecent photograph or video of the victim. The victim is major aged about
24 years and the applicant himself is a youth of 20 years old. The applicant
has no criminal history and is in jail since 23.6.2026. He undertakes to
cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have
vehemently opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the
learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
BAIL No. 29725 of 2026
2
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay of 15 days in institution of FIR coupled with the fact
that there is no recovery of any indecent photograph or video of the victim,
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- Vivek, be released on bail in the aforementioned case
crime 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.)
September 11, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…