HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24242 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Case called out. Counsel for the informant is not present. Earlier on 13.08.2026, the case was adjourned in absence of counsel for the informant. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is the brother-in- law (Dewar) of the informant and the uncle of the victim. A land dispute exists between the applicant and his brother (husband of the informant). In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the report of the Lekhpal dated 28.04.2026, annexed as Annexure No. 10 to the bail application. It is next contended that the applicant had not acted indecently with the victim. There are material inconsistencies between the first information report and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, on the one hand, and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, on the other hand. The said material inconsistencies discredits the prosecution case, at this stage. As per the medical examination report dated 19.04.2026, no external injury was found on the body of the victim. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 19.04.2026 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rishika Raj Singhal, Shivendra Raj Singhal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Birendra Singh, G.A., Mohd Shahrukh, Vinayak Ranjan, Yash Pratap Singh Pravendra Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this Court prima facie finds that as per the report of the Lekhpal dated 28.04.2026, a land dispute exists between the applicant and his brother. There are material inconsistencies between the first information report and the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than four months 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 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, Pravendra Singh involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. 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. September 8, 2026 Abhishek BAIL No. 24242 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma, J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad