Nahar Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35732 of 2025

Nahar Singh

	Versus		.....Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. And 3 Others			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Girja Shanker Awasthi	Sen,	Krishna Dutt
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 65

¶6

HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

¶7

Shri Mewa Lal Yadav, Advocate has appeared and submits that he had filed his vakalatnama on behalf of informant in the Registry today itself.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the material brought on record.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is named in the FIR along with on other accused, who is his wife. The FIR dated 29.07.20205 alleges that both the accused named in the FIR had disappeared his daughter two days earlier. When the victim was recovered her statement under Sections 180 BNSS was recorded in which she states that on 27.07.2025 the applicant took her to Budaun where he left her and fled away, thereafter, she stayed at her sister's house, she also states that applicant had committed her rape, whereas, in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS she alleges that on the alleged date when she was returning from agricultural field then suddenly applicant appeared and dragged her in jungle and committed her rape. Thus, learned counsel submits that though the victim in her both the statements recorded under Section 180 & 183 BNSS has made specific allegation of rape against the applicant, but there are material contradiction in both these statements regarding place of incident. Moreover, as per the victim the alleged incident took place on 27.07.2025, as per her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS the applicant took her to Budaun, where he left her,

¶10

BAIL No. 35732 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

whereas the victim was recovered by the police on 30.07.2024, but there is no explanation from the prosecution that for three days where the victim lived for those three days. There is a delay of two days in lodging of the FIR without there being any plausible explanation of such an inordinate delay. The victim was examined on 31.07.2025 wherein no external or internal injury was found on her person, thus, medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case. Thus, it has been argued that applicant has been implicated in the case with false and frivolous allegations due to village rivalry. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that there is on criminal case into the credit of applicant for the petty offence, in which he is on bail. The applicant is in jail since 07.08.2025.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.

¶14

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant-Nahar Singh, be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 307 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) of BNS and Section 4(2) of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station- Sirauli, District- Bareilly, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

BAIL No. 35732 of 2025

¶17

3

¶18

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶19

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶20

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶21

iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶22

v) 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶24

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)

¶25

November 19, 2025

¶26

Mustaqeem.

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nahar Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nahar Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Naushad vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Aftab vs State of U.P.

Pradum vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar Ahirwar vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bablu Rajbhar vs State of U.P.