Allahabad High Court
VISHAL PASIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and granted the bail application.
Summary
Vishal Pasi applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 0234 of 2025) filed under Sections 351(2) and 76 of the BNS, originally concerning criminal intimidation and later escalated to a rape allegation under Section 183. The applicant claimed innocence, argued that the FIR was lodged 20 days after the alleged incident, and pointed out that no video evidence alleged to have been recorded was ever produced. The State and the informant opposed bail, but could not refute the applicant’s contentions regarding the delayed FIR and lack of material evidence. The court examined the delay, the absence of any recovered video, and the applicant’s clean criminal record, and, without delving into the merits of the case, found that the applicant had satisfied the criteria for bail. Consequently, the court ordered the release of the applicant on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of non‑tampering with evidence and regular appearance before the trial court. The order also clarified that the bail decision would not prejudice the trial judge’s independent assessment of the evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case under Sections 351(2) and 76 of the BNS given the delay in filing the FIR
- Whether the absence of the alleged video evidence affects the bail eligibility
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 183, 351(2), 76
Subjects
- bail
- criminal intimidation
- rape allegation
- delay in FIR
- video evidence
- sureties
- trial court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32893 of 2025
Vishal Pasi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajai Kumar Srivastava, Praveen Kumar
Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ramesh Chandra Agrahari, G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 97 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant,
Sri Ramesh Chandra Agrahari, learned counsel for the informant as well as
Sri J.K. Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the material
placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0234 of 2025, under Sections
351(2) and 76 of BNS, Police Station Soram, Ganganagar Commissionerate,
Prayagraj, District Prayagraj, 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 was instituted regarding criminal intimidation and disrobing the victim
but the said allegations have been escalated to that of rape u/s 183 BNSS.
The said statement has been recorded as an afterthought. It is also alleged
that applicant is stated to have video-recorded the said act and had sent the
said video to the erstwhile husband but there is nothing on record to suggest
that there is recovery of any video, whatsoever. Even otherwise, the FIR is
delayed by about 20 days.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no
criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since
2.8.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
BAIL No. 32893 of 2025
2
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have
vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the
submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay in FIR; there being nothing on record to suggest that
there is recovery of any video and without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a
case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant- Vishal Pasi, who is involved in aforementioned case
crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to
verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper with
evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as
required.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent
opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…