Allahabad High Court

KANHAIYAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 17 September 2026
Bench: YOGESH DUBEY JOINT REGISTRAR JUDICIAL

Holding

The bail application is allowed; the applicant is released on bail subject to conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the accused Kanhaiya in a rape case (Crime No. 242 of 2026). The applicant claimed false implication, citing missed calls from the victim, contradictions in the FIR and statements, and a medico‑legal report showing no injuries. He also alleged a motive of retaliation for a complaint he lodged against the victim's husband and disclosed a prior conviction under Section 304A IPC. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual contentions. After reviewing the record, the Court found the case suitable for bail and ordered release on a personal bond with two sureties, imposing standard conditions to prevent tampering or intimidation of witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted under Section 483 BNS given the nature of the alleged offences (rape, assault) and the applicant's prior criminal record.
Whether the contradictions in the FIR, victim's statements, and lack of medico‑legal evidence justify bail.
Whether the possibility of evidence tampering or witness intimidation warrants denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 180, 183, 332(a), 351(2), 483, 64(1)
Indian Penal Code — s. 304A

Subjects

bail
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
rape allegation
false implication
criminal history
medico‑legal report
conditions of bail

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31104 of 2026

Kanhaiya
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shailesh Singh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Shailesh Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Ashish Kumar Tripathi, 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. 242 of 2026 under
Sections 64(1), 332(a), 351(2) BNS, registered at Police Station
Rasulabad, District Kanpur Dehat 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 on perusal of the call
details record, it appears that prior to the alleged incident, victim rang the
applicant several times, however, all the calls were missed. It is next
submitted that victim is a major and married lady and there appears to be
material contradictions in the contents of the FIR as well as in the
statements of the victim recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS. It is
further submitted that medico-legal report of the victim does not support
the allegation of rape on her as no injury has been found on her private
part. It is next submitted that applicant had lodged a complaint against the
husband of the victim regarding theft of electricity and it is submitted that
he has been implicated in this false case. It is further submitted that
applicant has criminal history of one case under section 304A IPC and he
has been languishing in jail since 30.6.2026. It is also submitted that the
BAIL No. 31104 of 2026
2

applicant 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 entered into the house of the
first informant and committed rape on her, however, victim is a major and
married lady and her medico-legal report does not support the allegation
of commission of rape on her. There appears to be material contradictions
in the contents of the FIR as well as in the statements of the victim
recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS. On perusal of the call details
record, it appears that prior to the alleged incident, the victim rang the
applicant several times, however, all the calls were missed. Prior to
lodging of the present case, applicant had lodged a complaint against the
husband of the victim regarding theft of electricity and he has been
implicated in this false case. Applicant has criminal history of one case
under section 304A IPC and he has been languishing in jail since
30.6.2026.

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 Kanhaiya 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. 31104 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 18, 2026
Madhurima

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…