Allahabad High Court
KAMALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The accused is entitled to bail and the bail application is allowed.
Summary
The accused, Kamal, filed a bail application in Criminal Case No. 89 of 2026, alleging that he was not named in the FIR dated 17‑04‑2026 filed by the victim's father for alleged enticement. He further submitted that the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS showed she voluntarily went to Mumbai with him, married him, and that no sexual intercourse or enticement occurred. The State and the informant opposed bail. The Court examined the victim’s statement and, without delving into the merits of the underlying offence, held that the applicant was entitled to bail. Accordingly, the bail was granted on personal bond and two sureties, citing the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) 10 SCC 674 and Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail in Re (2024) 10 SCC 685.
Issues considered
- Whether the accused, who is not named in the FIR and whose alleged conduct is contradicted by the victim’s statement, is entitled to bail under the applicable provisions.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 137(2), 183, 87
Subjects
- bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- victim statement
- FIR
- entrapment
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33933 of 2026
Kamal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Tripurari Pal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Tripurari Pal, learned counsel for accused applicant and learned
A.G.A. for State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant/ accused-
Kamal to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 89 of 2026, under Sections
137(2), 87 BNS, P.S.- Kishanpur, District-Fatehpur, during the pendency of
trial.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that the accused
applicant is not named in the FIR dated 17.04.2026 lodged by the father of
victim for enticement. It is further contended that the statement of victim
recorded under Section 183 BNSS, clearly reveals that she has called the
accused/applicant and thereafter the victim went to Mumbai along with
accused/applicant on her own will and volition. They got married in
Mumbai. There is no sexual intercourse entered into between the parties.
There is no enticement. The statement of victim is in favour of
accused/applicant. The accused applicant is languishing in jail since
07.06.2026. He seeks enlargement of accused on bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. for State and learned counsel for the informant have
opposed the prayer for bail.
5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
BAIL No. 33933 of 2026
2
6. Considering the statement of victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS,
the accused/applicant is entitled to be released 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 23, 2026
Abhishek Sri.
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…