Allahabad High Court

SAKLAINversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 30 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to bail as there is no corroborative evidence, the FIR is belated, and no reasonable apprehension of tampering, flight, or intimidation exists.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Saklain in a criminal case (Crime No. 684 of 2025) under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the IPC. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, noting that the FIR was lodged more than four months after the alleged incident and that no obscene video or photograph was collected. Statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Evidence Act indicated a consensual relationship between the applicant and the informant, who did not raise any protest in public. The court found no corroborative evidence linking the applicant to the offence, noted his clean criminal record, and observed no risk of evidence tampering, trial delay, or witness intimidation. Consequently, the court ordered his release on bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the FIR being lodged belatedly and the alleged nature of the offence.
Whether the lack of corroborative evidence and the consensual relationship negate the risk of tampering, flight, or intimidation.
Whether the applicant’s clean criminal record and short pre‑trial confinement justify granting bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 180, 183
Indian Penal Code — s. 351(2), 69

Subjects

bail
false implication
consensual relationship
lack of evidence
no prior criminal record
conditions of bail

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34215 of 2026

Saklain
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashutosh Ganguli, Masoom Alam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anupam Anand, learned
Brief Holder for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on
record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 684 of 2025, under Sections 69, 351(2)
B.N.S., Police Station- Sadar Bazar, District- Saharanpur, during the
pendency of trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The first information report has been lodged
after more than four months of the alleged incident. No obscene video or
photograph of the informant/victim has been collected by the investigating
officer. Placing reliance upon the statements of the informant/victim
recorded under Section 180 and 183 B.N.S.S., it is contended that the
applicant and the informant/victim were in consensual relationship. The
informant/victim was present at public place, but she did not raise any
protest or alarm. Such conduct of the informant/victim shows that she was a
consenting party. The applicant never promised to marry the
informant/victim. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the
applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 16.8.2026 having no
criminal antecedents and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse
the said liberty.

4. Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but
could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
BAIL No. 34215 of 2026
2

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged
belatedly. As per the statements of the informant/victim recorded under
Section 180 and 183 B.N.S.S., the applicant and the informant/victim were
in consensual relationship. No obscene video or photograph of the
informant/victim has been collected by the investigating officer. The
informant/victim was present at public place, but she did not raise any
protest or alarm. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the
applicant with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal
antecedents and has remained confined for more than one and half month
and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable
apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if
enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or
intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am
of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant Saklain, involved in the aforesaid case 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 the conditions
that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

October 1, 2026
Manish Kr

(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…