HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29323 of 2026 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajat Aren, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jai Krishna Chaurasiya, learned State Law Officer for the State-respondents and perused the record. 2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 98 of 2026 under Sections 64(1), 351(2) BNS, registered at Police Station Nanauta, District Saharanpur during pendency of the trial. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that FIR has been lodged after delay of one and a half year and the victim is a major lady who has not supported the allegation of rape on her. It is further submitted that the victim has stated before the doctor that the last incident of rape took place three months ago. It is further submitted that before lodging of the present case, wife of the applicant has lodged a case against the applicant and the victim alleging therein that they were in illicit relationship and the victim has lodged the present case in order to pressurize the applicant to get her name exonerated from the aforesaid case lodged by his wife. It is further submitted that on perusal of the statements of the victim recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS and other attending facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that she is a consenting party as she was in consensual relationship with the applicant. It is further submitted that applicant has criminal history of one case which has been lodged by the wife of the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raj Kumar Singh, Rajat Aren Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Munshad .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) applicant against him and the victim and he has been languishing in jail since 02.5.2026 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. 4. On the other hand, learned State Law Officer opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that during investigation, mobile phone of the applicant was recovered in which, some obscene photographs of the victim have been found. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that no photograph or video has been made viral by the applicant. 6. As per the FIR, applicant is said to have clicked some photographs of the victim while she was taking a bath and by showing the said photographs, he is said to have committed rape on the victim for one and a half years. The victim is major ad she has stated before the doctor that the last incident of rape took place some three months ago. Before lodging of the present case, wife of the applicant has lodged a case against the applicant and the victim alleging therein that they were in illicit relationship. On perusal of the statements of the victim recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS and other attending facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that she is a consenting party. No photograph or video as alleged has been made viral by the applicant though some obscene photographs have been found in the mobile phone of the applicant as pointed out by the State Law Officer. Applicant has criminal history of one case which has been lodged by the wife of the applicant against him and the victim and he has been languishing in jail since 02.5.2026. 7. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED. 8. Let the applicant Munshad involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- BAIL No. 29323 of 2026 2 (i) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) 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 351 of B.N.S.S. (iv) 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 the trial court. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 10. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. September 9, 2026 Madhurima BAIL No. 29323 of 2026 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad