Usman Vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23241 of 2025

¶3

Usman

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P.	...	..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ajay Singh Yadav, Dhiren Mishra, Kuldip Singh Yadav, Kumar Mishra, Vishvajit Yogesh Mishra	dra Babu Ravindra Tiwari,
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Abhishek Shukla, G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 65

¶7

(Sr. No.58 out of 205)

¶8

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶9

List has been revised.

¶10

Heard Sri Kuldeep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned counsel for the informant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶11

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.161 of 2025, under Sections 64, 352, 351(3) BNS, Police Station Kaarari, District Kaushambi, during the pendency of trial.

¶12

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 five days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is major aged about 19 years and she herself instituted the FIR. There is no medical corroboration of the incident, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 10.5.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the

¶14

BAIL No. 23241 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.

¶17

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 coupled by the fact that there is no medical corroboration of the incident, 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- Usman , 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 Vikas Verma

¶22

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

Usman v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usman 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

Sunil Ahirwar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mashalu @ Pradeep vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prashant vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Saurabh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shadab Vs State of U.P.

Hani Verma @ Yogendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others