Allowed¶17

Dinesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Apr 2026BAIL/13899/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Krishan Pahal J., May 5, 2026, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13899 of 2026, Dinesh v. State of U.P.; BNS ss.64(1), 115(2), 351(3), 123 and s.67 I.T. Act; P.S. Chandpur, District Bijnor; alleged corporeal relationship with major victim; delayed FIR; no medical corroboration; videos recovered from mobile; consensual relationship plea; bail allowed on personal bond and two sureties with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Dinesh to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, on conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required. ¶17

Dinesh vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Dinesh, arraigned in Case Crime No.126 of 2026 (Sections 64(1), 115(2), 351(3), 123 BNS and Section 67 I.T. Act, P.S. Chandpur, District Bijnor), is entitled to bail during the pendency of trial.

¶11

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, and considering that the victim is major with no clinching evidence that the applicant misled her from the beginning, the Court prima facie found that the applicant had made out a case for bail.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The bail application is allowed; the applicant Dinesh is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties.

¶18

Key takeaways

Release is conditional: the applicant shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required; breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail.ratio¶18
The observations made in the order shall not affect the trial on merits.obiter¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Case Crime No.126 of 2026, Sections 64(1), 115(2), 351(3), 123 BNS and Section 67 I.T. Act, P.S. Chandpur, District Bijnor — prosecution story that applicant established corporeal relationship with the victim several times; defence contended applicant absolutely innocent and falsely implicated, FIR delayed about 3 months with no explanation, no medical corroboration, victim 30 years old, videos recovered from applicant's mobile but no allegation that he threatened the victim or made them viral, a consensual relationship between two majors converted into a criminal case after they fell apart, applicant of no criminal history in jail since 20.03.2026 — HELD: victim being major and no clinching evidence that the applicant misled her from the beginning, and without expressing any opinion on merits, applicant made out a case for bail; bail allowed on personal bond and two sureties with conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and to appear before the trial court; breach of conditions to entail cancellation; observations not to affect trial on merits.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13899 of 2026

¶3

Dinesh

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P.		.....	Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Chandra Singh	Bhusan Kushwaha,	Jagdev
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 65

¶7

(Sr. No.51 out of 205)

¶8

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶9

List has been revised.

¶10

Heard Sri Jagdev Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶11

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.126 of 2026, under Sections 64(1), 115(2), 351(3), 123 BNS, and Section 67 I.T. Act, Police Station Chandpur, District Bijnor, during the pendency of trial.

¶12

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have established corporeal relationship with the victim several times.

¶13

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 3 months, and there is no explanation for the said delay. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The victim is 30 years old. It is true that certain videos were recovered from the mobile of the applicant, but there is no allegation that the applicant either threatened the victim or made the said videos viral. A matter of a consensual relationship between two major persons has been converted into a criminal case by the informant, as both have fallen apart. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 20.03.2026. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

BAIL No. 13899 of 2026

¶15

¶16

Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that the victim is major and there being no clinching evidence to suggest that the applicant misled the victim from the beginning, 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 .

¶18

Let the applicant- Dinesh , 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.

¶19

Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.

¶20

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶21

May 5, 2026

¶22

(Ravi Kant)

¶23

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

Dinesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh v. State of U.P.

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

Zaif Ali vs State of U.P.

Anand vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanny vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandresh Yadav vs State of U.P.

Jogendra vs State of U.P.

Kusum vs State of U.P.