Allahabad High Court
SACHIN YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Sachin Yadav, who was arrested in a case alleging sexual harassment and rape under Sections 64, 76, 351(3) and 352. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated, asserting that the victim, a 25‑year‑old woman, had a consensual relationship with a co‑accused and that the medico‑legal report did not support a rape allegation. The State did not dispute the factual background but opposed bail. The court examined the lack of corroborative medical evidence, the victim’s statements, the applicant’s prior criminal record, and the prolonged pendency of trial, and concluded that these factors did not preclude the grant of bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and several conditions aimed at preventing tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in view of the nature of the allegations and the evidence on record.
- Whether the alleged consensual relationship between the victim and a co‑accused and the absence of supporting medico‑legal evidence affect the bail decision.
- Whether the applicant’s prior criminal history and the pendency of the trial justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 126, 135, 170, 180, 183, 351(3), 352, 483, 64, 76
Subjects
- bail
- sexual harassment
- rape allegation
- false implication
- medico‑legal evidence
- criminal procedure
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30933 of 2026
Sachin Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : P.K. Upadhyay, Vikram Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri P.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiv
Dutt Shukla, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the
record.
2. 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. 156 of 2026 under
Sections 64, 76, 351(3), 352 BNS, registered at Police Station
Gaurabadshahpur, District Jaunpur during pendency of the trial.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case and the victim is major aged
about 25 years. It is further submitted that on the date of registration of
the FIR, a dispute arose between the applicant and the first informant and
the applicant was challaned by the SDM under sections 170/126/135
BNSS. It is next submitted that on perusal of the statement of the victim
recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS, it appears that she was in
consensual relationship with co-accused Nikhil Nishad as she has stated
in her statement under section 180 BNSS that she wants to marry him. It
is further submitted that medico-legal report of the victim does not
support the allegation of rape on her and no video or photograph as
alleged has been found during the investigation. It is further submitted
that applicant has criminal history of one case and he has been
languishing in jail since 04.8.2026. It is also submitted that the applicant
BAIL No. 30933 of 2026
2
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.
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of
bail to the applicant, however, he does not dispute the aforesaid facts.
5. As per the FIR, applicant is said to have sexually harassed and outraged
the modesty of the victim, however, in her statement recorded under
sections 180 and 183 BNSS, she has stated that co-accused Nikhil Nishad
and the applicant committed rape on her. She has also stated in her
statement under section 180 BNSS that she wants to marry co-accused
Nikhil Nishad. The victim is major and her medico-legal report does not
support the allegation of rape on her and no video or photograph as
alleged has been found during the investigation. On the date of
registration of the FIR, a dispute arose between the father of the applicant
and the first informant and the applicant was challaned by the SDM under
sections 170/126/135 BNSS. Applicant has criminal history of one case
and he has been languishing in jail since 04.8.2026.
6. 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.
7. Let the applicant Sachin Yadav 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
witnesses.
BAIL No. 30933 of 2026
3
(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.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
9. 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 17, 2026
Madhurima
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…