Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Vishal Pasi vs State Of U.P.

Allahabad High Court6 May 2026Krishan Pahal

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an applicant accused under Sections 351(2) and 76 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is charged during trial, bail may be granted on the basis of delay in filing the FIR, absence of recovery of material evidence such as video, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, even without expressing an opinion on the merits. Bail granted under this Court's order shall be subject to the condition that the applicant furnish a personal bond and two sureties in like amounts, to the satisfaction of the trial court with verification of sureties, and that the applicant shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear as required before the trial court. Breach of the conditions imposed in a bail order constitutes a ground for cancellation of bail. Observations made by the bail-granting court in its order shall not bind or prejudice the trial judge in forming an independent opinion on the merits based on the evidence and testimony of witnesses at trial.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABADNeutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:104360HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABADCRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32893 of 2025Vishal Pasi.....Applicant(s)VersusState of U.P......Opposite Party(s)Counsel for Applicant(s):Ajai Kumar Srivastava, Praveen Kumar SrivastavaCounsel for Opposite Party(s):Ramesh Chandra Agrahari, G.A.Court No. - 65(Sl. No. 97 out of 259)HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ramesh Chandra Agrahari, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri J.K. Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0234 of 2025, under Sections 351(2) and 76 of BNS, Police Station Soram, Ganganagar Commissionerate, Prayagraj, District Prayagraj, 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 FIR was instituted regarding criminal intimidation and disrobing the victim but the said allegations have been escalated to that of rape u/s 183 BNSS. The said statement has been recorded as an afterthought. It is also alleged that applicant is stated to have video-recorded the said act and had sent the said video to the erstwhile husband but there is nothing on record to suggest that there is recovery of any video, whatsoever. Even otherwise, the FIR is delayed by about 20 days.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 2.8.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.

7. 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 nothing on record to suggest that there is recovery of any video 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.

8. Let the applicant- Vishal Pasi, 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.

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

10. 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