Babloo Vs State of U.P.

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

¶12

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.306 of 2024, under Sections 74, 64, 332(Kha), 352, 351(2), 115(2) BNS, Police Station Biwar, District Hamirpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶13

As per prosecution story, the applicant, in an inebriated state, is stated to have assaulted and caused injuries to the victim on her face on 7.12.2024 at about 10:00 p.m.

¶14

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. There was no allegation of sexual assault against the applicant in the FIR, but the said allegations have been escalated to that of rape in the statement of victim recorded U/s 183 BNSS as an afterthought after legal consultation.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that there is no medical corroboration of the sexual assault although she sustained minor injuries on her face, which are simple in nature. The applicant has no

¶16

BAIL No. 22717 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

criminal history and is in jail since 7.12.2024. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶19

Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.

¶20

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 FIR and also there being no medical corroboration of the sexual assault, 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 .

¶21

Let the applicant- Babloo , 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.

¶22

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

¶23

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶24

April 20, 2026 Vikas Verma

¶25

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Babloo v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babloo 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

Similar cases

Krishna Patel vs State of U.P.

Rahul Yadav vs State of U.P.

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

Aryan Verma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tanveer Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Kumar Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others