Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36069 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5399 of 2025 Applicant :- Rakesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Gyanendra Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Pramendra Kumar, Advocate on behalf of the complainant is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pramendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in FIR No.124 of 2025, under Sections 64(1), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS, 2023, Police Station Murtiha, District Bahraich. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He next submits that the First Information Report is lodged with delay of 5 days and no plausible explanation is given thereof. He submits that the First Information Report is lodged by the prosecutrix herself, wherein she stated that she was assaulted with knife by the applicant, whereas in her statement recorded under Section 180 of BNS, she has stated that she received injuries with knife but the medico legal examination report is evident that there is no sign of use of force and further there is no mark of injury over the body of the alleged victim which belies the story of the prosecution. He next submits that due to certain anonymity, the First Information Report has been lodged and to give seriousness of the allegations, the allegation of rape is levelled against the applicant. He next submits that the medical report does not support the version of the prosecution. He also submits that the chargesheet has been filed in the case, as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. He next added that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and has no previous criminal antecedent and he is languishing in jail since 13.05.2025 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the contentions aforesaid and has submitted that the applicant is named in the First Information Report and there is specific allegation of committing rape against the applicant and, therefore, he is not entitled for any relief. Learned Counsel for the State has also supported the version of learned counsel for the complainant and has submitted that the nature of allegation is serious and, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the FIR is delayed by 5 days and no plausible explanation is given thereof; further there is no use of force as is evident from the medico legal examination report; further there is no mark of injury over the body of the victim, however there is allegation that the applicant has assaulted the victim with knife; the chargesheet has been filed in the matter, therefore, there is no possibility of tampering the evidences or threatening the witnesses by the applicant; this Court has also noticed the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 13.05.2025, coupled with the fact that he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Let the applicant-Rakesh Yadav involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code; (3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and (4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 23.6.2025 kkv/ Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench