HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5435 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 01.11.2024, whereas the F.I.R., has been lodged on 04.11.2024 without there being any plausible explanation of such an inordinate delay. He further submits that in the F.I.R., it has been alleged that her husband used to reside outside and on 01.11.2024 at about 12:00 hours in the night, the victim was alone in the house along with her children, the applicant entered into her house and has committed rape, which incident was reported by her to her husband, who came back on 03.11.2024 in the night and since he was tired he slept, thereafter at about 10:00 hours of 04.11.2024, she told her husband about the incident, thereafter F.I.R. has been lodged at about 23:10 hours. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court to the statement of husband of the victim and has submitted that her husband has specifically stated that he used to reside on a rent at Jhansi with his family since 08 months and on 01.11.2024 at about 06:00 A.M., he had gone to Ratangarh to visit Datiya Mandir, Madhya Pradesh and returned in the evening at about 07:00 P.M. of 03.11.2024, on the next day i.e. 04.11.2024 in the afternoon, his wife told him about the incident. Learned counsel argued that in fact, the husband of the applicant resides with the victim at Jhansi and he did not reside outside and when the victim told him about the incident in the morning at about 10:00 A.M. of 04.11.2024 even then the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sandeep Kumar Tripathi, Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, Shiv Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ballu @ Mukesh Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) F.I.R., has been lodged at about 23:10 hours on 04.11.2024, which itself falsifies the prosecution story. Learned counsel has next argued that the victim is major and that the medical evidence also does not corroborate with the prosecution version. It is thus contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 07.11.2024. 3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. 4. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view, that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 5. Let applicant Ballu @ Mukesh Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 220 of 2024 under Sections 64(1), 333, 351(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Garautha, District Jhansi, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:- i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court. iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of BAIL No. 5435 of 2025 2 which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission. 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 6. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in accordance with law. 7. The bail application is allowed. October 30, 2025 S.Ali BAIL No. 5435 of 2025 3 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad