Allahabad High Court
AMAR BAHADURversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Amar Bahadur, who is charged with offences under Sections 452 and 376 of the IPC and Sections 66E and 67 of the Income Tax Act for an alleged rape of his aunt, a married woman. The applicant argued that the relationship, lack of corroborative medico‑legal evidence, and an ongoing civil dispute made the allegations improbable, while the prosecution highlighted the victim’s recorded statements and video material, albeit unidentified. The court noted the applicant’s prior criminal case and current incarceration but, after weighing the totality of circumstances, deemed the case suitable for bail. Consequently, bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and several conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses. The order expressly limited its scope to the bail application and did not comment on the merits of the underlying criminal case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the seriousness of the alleged rape, criminal intimidation, and IT offences.
- Whether the applicant’s prior criminal history and the existence of video evidence affect the bail decision.
- Whether the lack of supportive medico‑legal report and the familial relationship with the victim justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 180, 183, 351
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Income Tax Act — s. 66E, 67
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376, 452
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- criminal intimidation
- Income Tax Act offences
- Section 483 BNSS
- prior criminal history
- evidence evaluation
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43986 of 2025
Amar Bahadur
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Kumar, Vidhu Bhooshan Shukla,
Vikas Kumar Ojha, Vivek Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Diwakar Kumar Tiwari, G.A., Mithilesh
Kumar Ojha
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Vikas Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vidhu Bhushan Shukla,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mithilesh Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the
first informant, Sri Shiv Dutt Shukla, 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. 213 of 2025 under Sections 452, 376 IPC and 66E, 67 of I.T.
Act registered at Police Station Karchhna, District Prayagraj during pendency of the
trial.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is nephew of the
victim who is a major and married lady aged about 39 years and it is highly
unbelievable and improbable that he would commit such an offence. It is further
submitted that first incident is said to have taken place in the month of June, 2024
which was not reported to anyone and the alleged incident is said to have taken place
on 03.7.2025, however, medico-legal report of the victim does not support the
allegation of commission of rape on her. It is further submitted that a civil dispute is
going on between father of the applicant and husband of the victim in a competent
court at Prayagraj. It is further submitted that applicant has criminal history of one
case in which he is on bail and he has been languishing in jail since 12.7.2025. It is
also submitted that the 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. as well as learned counsel for the first informant
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submit that victim has stated
in her statements recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS that applicant committed
rape on her.
BAIL No. 43986 of 2025
2
5. As per the FIR, applicant is said to have committed rape on the victim who is a
major and married lady. Applicant is said to be the nephew of the victim and a civil
dispute is going on between father of the applicant and husband of the victim in a
competent court at Prayagraj. Some videos have been recovered during investigation,
however, the male present in the said videos has not been identified. Applicant has
criminal history of one case in which he is on bail and he has been languishing in jail
since 12.7.2025.
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 Amar Bahadur 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.
(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.
September 23, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…