Allahabad High Court
RAM JIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The court held that, based on the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS showing lack of enticement, the accused is entitled to bail.
Summary
Ram Ji applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 145 of 2026) under Sections 137(2) and 87 of the BNS, claiming he was falsely implicated. The victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS indicated that she left her parental home voluntarily and that no sexual intercourse or enticement occurred. The prosecution opposed the bail, but the court examined the victim’s statement and the charge sheet, which showed no prior criminal attribution to the accused. Relying on the victim’s declaration and Supreme Court precedents on bail policy, the court decided the accused was entitled to bail. Consequently, the bail was granted on personal bond and sureties, with a direction to cooperate for speedy trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the accused is entitled to bail under Sections 137(2) and 87 of the BNS in view of the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS.
- Whether the bail can be granted without delving into the merits of the underlying offence.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 137(2), 183, 87
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- victim statement
- Section 183 BNSS
- Sections 137(2) and 87 BNS
- Supreme Court bail policy
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32710 of 2026
Ram Ji
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lallan Prasad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mithilesh Kumar Shukla, Sudhir
Kumar Shukla
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Lallan Prasad, learned counsel for accused applicant, Sri
Mithilesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant and learned
A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant accused-
Ram Ji to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 145 of 2026, under
Sections 137(2), 87 of BNS, P.S.- Gajner, District- Kanpur Dehat during
the pendency of trial.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for accused applicant that the
accused applicant has been falsely implicated in the FIR dated 15.6.2026
lodged by father of the victim for enticement. It is contended that the
victim in her statement under Section 183 BNSS has specifically stated
that the victim left her parental home on her own. There was no sexual
intercourse between them and she was not enticed by the accused
applicant. The charge sheet has been submitted. There are two cases
criminal history shown in the report but none is attributed to the accused
applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.6.2026. He seeks
enlargement of accused on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have opposed
the bail application.
5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
BAIL No. 32710 of 2026
2
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the statement of the victim under Section 183 BNSS, the
accused applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
7. Hence, without touching merit of the case, the bail application is
allowed.
8. The accused/applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case on
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of court concerned in view of observation made by the
Supreme Court in its dictums of Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh [(2024) 10 SCC 674] and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in
re [(2024)10SCC 685].
9. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and
speedy disposal.
(Avnish Saxena,J.)
September 29, 2026
Krishna*
Digitally signed by :-
KRISHNA KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…