HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34796 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of informant which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. along with four other accused. There is allegation of rape against all the accused named in the F.I.R. that on the alleged date the committed rape of informant's niece. In the F.I.R. it has also been alleged that all the accused by blackmailing the victim that they had made video of that incident, committed her rape several times. Learned counsel further submits that though in her statement recorded under Section 180 & 183 B.N.S.S. the victim has made allegation of rape against all the accused, but there are material contradictions. There is no such video on the record. As per her statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. the victim has made specific allegation of rape and blackmailing against the co-accused-Kapil, and she has not made such allegation against the other accused including the applicant. Thus, the case of co-accused-Kapil is distinguishable from the case of the applicant. 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 27.06.2025, having no criminal history. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ghanshyam Das Mishra, Sunil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pushpendra .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have 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, but they submitted that the alleged video was got viral. 5. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed. 6. Let the applicant-Pushpendra, be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 138 of 2025, under Sections 70(1), 75 of B.N.S. and Section 67-A of I.T. Act, Police Station- Nauhjheel, District- Mathura, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with 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 any offence similar to the offence of 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. 7. In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant in accordance with law. October 9, 2025 Mustaqeem. BAIL No. 34796 of 2025 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad