Allahabad High Court
SABALUversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail and therefore granted bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sabalu in a case registered under Sections 74, 331(4), 351(3), 64(1) and 352 of the Indian Penal Code. The court noted an inordinate delay of more than one day in lodging the FIR and observed that the alleged victim appeared to be a consenting party, having not raised any alarm on two occasions. No medical evidence was produced to substantiate the alleged offence. Without passing on the merits, the court held that these circumstances created a prima facie case for bail. Accordingly, bail was granted on the condition of a personal bond, two sureties, and compliance with standard bail conditions. The order expressly stated that any breach would lead to cancellation of bail and would not affect the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR warrants the grant of bail to the accused
- Whether the victim's apparent consent and lack of medical evidence justify bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 331(4), 351(3), 352, 64(1), 74
Subjects
- bail
- delay in FIR
- victim consent
- medical evidence
- Indian Penal Code
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29887 of 2026
Sabalu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sudhanshu Kumar Gour Hari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dhirendra Kumar Verma, G.A., Mona
Gautam, Vipin Pandey
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.79 out of 80 T.C.)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Sudhanshu Kumar Gour Hari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.P.
Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on
record. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.105 of 2026, under Sections 74, 331(4),
351(3), 64(1), 352 B.N.S., Police Station- Musajhag, District- Budaun, during the
pendency of trial.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that there is an
inordinate delay of more than one day in lodging the FIR. The victim appears to be a
consenting party, as she did not raise any alarm twice, i.e., on 27.05.2026 and
25.07.2026. 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- Sabalu, 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.
7. 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
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…