Suka vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43678 of 2025

Suka

Court No. - 64

¶6

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 448 of 2025, under Sections 75, 79, 64(1) and 351(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Gulaothi, District- Bulandshahar during pendency of the trial.

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to certain other dispute between the parties. The date of the alleged incident has neither been mentioned in the first information report nor in the statement of the informant. In the statement of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. the date of incident is mentioned as 5.9.2025. The first information report was lodged on 27.9.2025. The delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the medical report, no external injury was seen on the body of the victim. It is next contended that no such incident as alleged had occurred. The applicant did not act inappropriately with the victim. There are inconsistencies in the first information report and in the statements of the victim under Section 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. The applicant is in jail since 25.10.2025 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

BAIL No. 43678 of 2025

2

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the date of the alleged incident has neither been mentioned in the first information report nor in the statement of the informant. In the statement of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. the date of incident has been mentioned. The first information report has been lodged belatedly. There are inconsistencies in the first information report and in the statements of the victim under Section 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. As per the medical report, no external injury was seen on the body of the victim. The applicant has no criminal history. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than one 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 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.

Let the applicant, Suka involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.