HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34215 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 684 of 2025, under Sections 69, 351(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Sadar Bazar, District- Saharanpur, during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The first information report has been lodged after more than four months of the alleged incident. No obscene video or photograph of the informant/victim has been collected by the investigating officer. Placing reliance upon the statements of the informant/victim recorded under Section 180 and 183 B.N.S.S., it is contended that the applicant and the informant/victim were in consensual relationship. The informant/victim was present at public place, but she did not raise any protest or alarm. Such conduct of the informant/victim shows that she was a consenting party. The applicant never promised to marry the informant/victim. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 16.8.2026 having no criminal antecedents and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashutosh Ganguli, Masoom Alam Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Saklain .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged belatedly. As per the statements of the informant/victim recorded under Section 180 and 183 B.N.S.S., the applicant and the informant/victim were in consensual relationship. No obscene video or photograph of the informant/victim has been collected by the investigating officer. The informant/victim was present at public place, but she did not raise any protest or alarm. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than one and half month and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant Saklain, involved in the aforesaid case 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 the conditions that he: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and, (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. October 1, 2026 Manish Kr BAIL No. 34215 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad