Tanveer v. State of U.P

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15141 of 2026 Court No. - 65 (Sl. No. 29 out of 205) HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard Sri Pushpendra Vishwakarma, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri J.K. Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

¶3Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 72 of 2026, under Sections 352, 351(2), 64(1) BNS, Police Station Civil Line, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

¶4The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by 15 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶5The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she has stated that she had gone at the calling of the applicant to the house of his friend and had earlier on also, met him at a restaurant. There is allegation in the FIR that applicant had raped the victim and clicked her nude photos. There is no recovery of any photo of the victim, whatsoever. There is no medical corroboration of the incident either.

¶6The victim is major being 22 years old as per ossification test report. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Keshari Nath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Tanveer .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s)

¶7There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.2.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:

¶8Learned State Law Officer has opposed the bail application but could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant. CONCLUSION:

¶9Considering 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 FIR; there being no medical corroboration of the incident; there being no recovery of any photograph of the victim and the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, whereby she seems to be consenting party and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10Let the applicant-Tanveer, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.

¶11In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶12It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. May 5, 2026 Shalini BAIL No. 15141 of 2026 (Krishan Pahal,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad