Allahabad High Court
RAVI KESARWANIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that, prima facie, the applicant is entitled to bail and allowed the bail application.
Summary
Ravi Kesarwani applied for bail in a rape case (Criminal No. 406 of 2025) alleging that the FIR was filed 11 days after the alleged offence and lacked a specific date and time. The prosecution contended that the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the CrPC were consistent with the FIR except for the date, and that the applicant had a close relationship with the police, arguing against bail. The defence highlighted the delayed FIR, the absence of medical evidence, the applicant’s clean criminal record, and his willingness to cooperate with the trial. The court examined the delay, the lack of corroborative medical proof, and the prima facie nature of the case, concluding that these factors favored granting bail. Consequently, the court ordered the release of the applicant on personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Does an 11‑day delay in filing the FIR and the absence of a specific date and time in the FIR justify granting bail?
- Does the lack of medical corroboration of the alleged rape affect the bail decision?
- Do the nature of the offence and alleged police‑applicant relationship preclude bail?
- Is there a prima facie case for bail under the applicable provisions of the CrPC?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 180, 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 305, 351(3), 64(1)
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- delayed FIR
- medical evidence
- prima facie case
- sureties
- CrPC
- IPC
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 552 of 2026
Ravi Kesarwani
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anurag Pandey, Dev Raj Singh, Virendra
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anup Kumar Pandey, G.A., Mohitosh Singh,
Rahul Chaudhary
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.128 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Second supplementary affidavit filed by learned
counsel for the applicant and counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for
the informant are taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Virendra Singh, Sri Dev Raj Singh, learned counsels for the
applicant, Sri Mohitosh Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri
Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused
the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.406 of 2025, under Sections 64(1),
351(3), 305 BNS, Police Station Civil Lines, District Prayagraj, during the
pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have taken the victim to
a go-down on the pretext of getting her treatment and instead committed
rape with her, and retained the keys and mobile of the victim with him.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the FIR is delayed, as no
date and time of the offence is mentioned therein. The statement of the
victim recorded under Section 180 BNSS also does not mention any date and
time of the offence. The date and time of the offence came up for the first
time in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS,
whereby it is stated that the applicant committed the said offence on
14.09.2025, which itself indicates that the FIR is delayed by about 11 days;
as such, the victim has inflated the allegations at the time of recording of her
BAIL No. 552 of 2026
2
statement under Section 183 BNSS, whereby she has stated that the
applicant got her injured as his friend Aakash crushed her feet under his car.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that there is no
medical corroboration of the incident. The victim is a married lady. The
incident of causing injury to the foot of the victim cannot be attributed to the
applicant. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since
10.11.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the
liberty of bail.
7. Learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have
vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is no
contradiction in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and
183 BNSS to the FIR, except the date and time of the offence; she has
mentioned each and every detail in it. The applicant has a cordial
relationship with the police, as he obliges them with eateries; as such, he is
not entitled to bail.
8. 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 of about 11 days in the institution of the FIR and the
fact that there is no medical corroboration of the incident, and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of
the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application
is allowed.
9. Let the applicant- Ravi Kesarwani, be released on bail on furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned,
subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not
tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the
trial court as required.
10. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…