Gopali vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Gopali vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail allowed to applicant Gopali in Case Crime No.869 of 2024: release on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned (sureties to be verified before the release order), subject to conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence and shall appear in person before the Trial Court at opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S.; breach of conditions is a ground for cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether Gopali, the applicant arraigned in Case Crime No.869 of 2024 under Sections 64, 115(2), 127(2) B.N.S. (Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilly), is entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of trial.

Court's answer

Adopting the approach of Niranjan Singh (AIR 1980 SC 785), the Court avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case; a prima facie satisfaction of the case is needed, which is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

Ratio / Principle

The Court held that the applicant Gopali has made out a case for bail and the bail application is allowed.

Key takeaways

The grant of bail took into consideration the delay in institution of the FIR coupled with the fact that the victim has sustained only one bruise behind her ear.ratio¶14
The Court acted while taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. (2022 INSC 690) and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 INSC 595), and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 65), Krishan Pahal, J. — Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:62197; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 11028 of 2025; decided 24.4.2025. Gopali, charged in Case Crime No.869 of 2024 under Sections 64, 115(2), 127(2) B.N.S., Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilly, accused of enticing away the victim on his tractor in the night of 15/16.11.2024 from a fair, sought bail pending trial; in custody since 22.11.2024. Defence contended absolute innocence and false implication, an about-one-day unexplained FIR delay, implied consent of the victim (major, married, mother of four), no medical corroboration beyond a single bruise on the back of her ear (possibly self-inflicted, unattributed to the applicant in the FIR save her Section 183 B.N.S.S. statement), and clean antecedents; the learned A.G.A. opposed. Following Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others (AIR 1980 SC 785) — prima facie satisfaction rather than exhaustive exploration of merits — and taking into consideration the settled Supreme Court law in Satender Kumar Antil (2022 INSC 690) and Manish Sisodia (2024 INSC 595), and weighing the FIR delay and the single bruise behind her ear, the Court allowed bail without expressing any opinion on merits: release on a personal bond with two like sureties (to be verified before release), conditions of no tampering with evidence and in-person appearance at opening of the case, framing of charge and the Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. stage, deliberate absence punishable as abuse of bail liberty, breach a ground for cancellation; observations expressly not to affect the trial Judge's independent opinion.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62197

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11028 of 2025 Applicant :- Gopali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Karunesh Narayan Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

List has been revised.

Heard Sri Karunesh Narayan Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.869 of 2024, under Sections 64, 115(2), 127(2) B.N.S., Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the victim on his tractor in the night of 15/16.11.2024 from a fair.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The consent of the victim can be drawn from the fact that she had gone with the applicant on his tractor to his house. She is major and a married lady having four children.

Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that there is no medical corroboration of the incident, although one bruise has been observed on the back of her ear, which can be self inflicted and there is no allegation of the said bruise being caused by the applicant in the FIR except her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

The Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others, AIR 1980 SC 785

has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

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 institution of the FIR coupled with the fact that the victim has sustained only one bruise behind her ear, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 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 .

Let the applicant- Gopali , 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 following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

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.

Order Date :- 24.4.2025 (Ravi Kant)

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad