Lal Bahadur vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 339 of 2024, under sections 64(1), 87, 127 (2), 351 (3), 352 of the BNS and (old sections 376, 366, 342, 506, 504 IPC), Police Station Baghuli, District- Hardoi is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶13

The brief facts of the present case are that on 08.10.2024, an FIR has been lodged under Sections 64, 87, 127 (2), 351 (2) and 352 of BNS, 2023 (old sections 376, 366, 342, 506 and 504 IPC) by the informant/victim against six accused persons (all belong to the same family) alleging therein that on 17.08.2024 when she was having quarrel with her brother at around 9 PM her father scolded her. At that time, all the accused persons took her to their home. It is further alleged therein that these persons took her to the end of the road and thereafter enticed her to go alongwith applicant. The applicant had forcibly established the physical relationship with her in the field of corn and gagged her mouth with Augauncha . This incident occurred on 17.08.2024 at around 11 PM. It has further been alleged therein that thereafter the applicant took her in neighbouring forest and kept her there for whole night and in the next morning, she managed herself to free from the clutches of applicant and went home.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the FIR has been lodged with an unexplained delay of around 52 days from the date of alleged incident.

¶15

It is further submitted that named co-accused Nanhe is the real uncle of the victim/informant and Kauslaya Tai is wife of Nanhe while remaining three co-accused persons are their daughters. Applicant is the brother-in-law

¶16

BAIL No. 2714 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

of Nanhe.

¶19

It is further submitted that the victim, who is the informant herself has changed her version at every stage rather improved it at every stage. In her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS, she had maintained her version as mentioned in the FIR but in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, she had stated that her Tai i.e. a named accused person, tied her hands and legs and handed over her to applicant. The second thing that has been changed in her statement is that after establishing physical relationship in the corn's field she asked the applicant to leave her at her home and then applicant accompanied and left her till the end of the road and on reaching home at about 12 o' clock (night), she found that her parents had gone for an outing, thus, she narrated her grand mother what had been happened to her. So in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, she changed her stand from Section 180 BNSS as well as FIR that after committing rape, applicant took her to the neighbouring forest and kept her there for whole night and also involved her Tai that she tied her hands and legs. If both the things would have happened in actual, the victim must have mentioned it in FIR lodged by herself and must have given the same statements at the time of recording statement under Sections 180 BNSS.

¶20

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 06.12.2024.

¶21

On the other hand, learned AGA on the basis of instructions received has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but unable to dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶22

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that FIR has been lodged with an unexplained delay of 52 days from the date of alleged incident ; the victim, who is the informant herself, has improved her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS by adding new things which were alleged to be happened on the date of incident i.e. 17.08.2024 then how the same has not been mentioned in the FIR and the statement of victim recorded under Section 180 BNSS, as discussed above, thus, prima-facie, the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

¶23

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶24

Let the applicant- Lal Bahadur be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following

¶25

BAIL No. 2714 of 2026

¶26

3

¶27

conditions:-

¶28

(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶29

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶30

(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶31

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶32

(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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶33

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶34

(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶35

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶36

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶37

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this order.

¶38

April 17, 2026 Ashish

¶39

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶40

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lal Bahadur v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Bahadur v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

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

Ramdutt Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Ahmad Raza @ Ali Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt.of Home Lko.

Mahfooz @ Bhindi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Lko.

Kiran vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Hassan Khan (in the First Fir as Hassan ) vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Juvenile a Minor Thru. His Guardian/Father Complaint Case No. 04/2025 vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others