Gufran @ Rihan vs State Of U.P.
- Neutral2026:AHC:103459
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
In a bail application during trial, where there is delay in the filing of the FIR, absence of medical corroboration of the alleged incident, and the victim's statement recorded under section 183 BNSS indicates consent, the court may grant bail to the accused. Breach of bail conditions, including tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or failure to appear before the trial court as required, constitutes grounds for cancellation of bail. Observations made by the bail-granting court shall not affect or bind the trial judge's independent assessment of the case based on the evidence and testimony presented during trial.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 169 of 2025, under Sections 64(2)(J), 87, 351(3) BNS, Police Station Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations as made in the FIR are false. The victim is a married lady having two children and is 27 years old. The FIR is delayed by ten days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
5. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she had gone with the applicant all the way to Surat and did not raise any alarm, whatsoever, during the said sojourn. There is no medical corroboration of the incident.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has next stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.6.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in FIR; there being no medical corroboration of the incident and the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, whereby she seems to be consenting party and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant- Gufran @ Rihan, who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Shalini
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free