HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16612 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Sahni, learned counsel for the informant and Sri N. K. Sharma, learned AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 675 of 2025, under Section 64 of the B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, Police Station- Sahjanwan, District- Gorakhpur, during the pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The first information report and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. do not contain any allegation of rape against the applicant. However, the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. stated that the applicant committed rape upon her. The material inconsistency between the first information report and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. on one hand and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. on the other, discredit the prosecution case, at this stage. It is contended that as per the medical report dated 19.12.2025, no external or internal injury was seen on the body of the victim. There is no corroborative evidence to connect the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 28.12.2025 having no criminal history and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashish Kumar Maurya, G.A., Pankaj Sahni Rajdhani @ Dhaniya Sahani .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA 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 there is inconsistency 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. The medical report does not support the prosecution case. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to connect the applicant with the offence. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than eight months and after submission of charge sheet 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 merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant Rajdhani @ Dhaniya Sahani, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on 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; (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. September 11, 2026 Abhishek BAIL No. 16612 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma, J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad