The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to an applicant accused under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), highlighting critical issues such as the delay in filing the FIR and the retrospective applicability of the statute. The judgment underscores the importance of evaluating the timeline of events and the legal framework in force at the time of the alleged offence, offering significant guidance for similar cases involving consensual relationships and delayed complaints.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Ram Babu Yadav, was accused of establishing a physical relationship with the first informant on the false promise of marriage. The first informant alleged that the relationship was consensual from 2018 to 2024, but the FIR was lodged only in 2026, after a delay of two years. The applicant was charged under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which came into force in 2024, raising questions about its retrospective applicability to events occurring before its enactment.
Key Facts
- The applicant and the first informant were in a consensual relationship from 2018 to 2024
- The alleged incident took place in 2024, but the FIR was lodged in 2026
- The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) came into force in 2024, and its provisions were not applicable during the 2018-2024 period
- The applicant has been in jail since 03.04.2026
- The applicant has no criminal history
Procedural History
- Case Crime No. 43 of 2026 was registered under Section 69 of BNS at Police Station Myorpur, District Sonbhadra
- The applicant filed Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18700 of 2026 before the Allahabad High Court
- The bail application was heard by Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought bail during the pendency of the trial, arguing that:
- He was falsely implicated in the case
- There was no incriminating material against him
- The delay in lodging the FIR and the retrospective applicability of BNS were critical factors
The Legal Issue
The central question before the court was whether Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) could be applied retrospectively to a consensual relationship that existed from 2018 to 2024, given that the statute came into force only in 2024. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the lack of criminal history warranted the grant of bail.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
- The applicant was falsely implicated, and there was no incriminating material against him
- The first informant admitted to a consensual relationship from 2018 to 2024, but the FIR was lodged only in 2026, after a delay of two years
- The provisions of BNS were not applicable during the 2018-2024 period, raising questions about retrospective applicability
- The applicant had no criminal history and had been languishing in jail since 03.04.2026
- If granted bail, the applicant would not misuse the liberty and would cooperate in the trial proceedings
For the State
- The learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, though specific counter-arguments were not detailed in the judgment
The Court's Analysis
The court considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, including the submissions of both parties, the nature of the offence, the evidence on record, and the complicity of the accused. The court also took into account the overcrowded jails and the heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts. Importantly, the court relied on the mandate of the Supreme Court's judgment in Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation (2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038) and the guidelines issued by the Allahabad High Court in Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. (2024 SCC Online All 6765) regarding the grant of bail.
The court observed that:
"Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail."
The court emphasized that the delay in lodging the FIR and the retrospective applicability of Section 69 BNS were critical factors in its decision to grant bail. The court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, focusing instead on the applicant's right to bail under the given circumstances.
The Verdict
The Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application. The applicant, Ram Babu Yadav, was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned court. The court imposed the following conditions:
- The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence
- The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without seeking any adjournment
- The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail
- The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him
The court further directed that in case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. The identity, status, and residence proof of the applicant and sureties were to be verified by the concerned court, along with the verification of their mobile numbers and Aadhaar cards. The trial court was directed to send the release order to the concerned jail through the Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to ensure the early release of the applicant. The office was also directed to send a copy of the order to the applicant through the Jail Superintendent, Sonbhadra, via email or the e-prison portal within 24 hours, in compliance with the Supreme Court's order in Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021 ((2024) 10 SCC 685).
What This Means For Similar Cases
Retrospective Applicability of Statutes
- The judgment highlights the importance of evaluating whether a statute can be applied retrospectively to events occurring before its enactment. Practitioners must argue that Section 69 BNS, or any similar provision, cannot be applied to relationships or incidents that took place before the statute came into force
- Courts are likely to scrutinize the timeline of events and the applicability of the law in force at the time of the alleged offence, particularly in cases involving consensual relationships
Delay in Lodging FIR
- A significant delay in lodging an FIR can be a critical factor in bail considerations. The court in this case noted the two-year delay between the alleged incident and the lodging of the FIR, which weakened the prosecution's case
- Practitioners should emphasize delays in FIRs, especially in cases where the complainant was aware of the alleged offence for an extended period but chose to report it much later
Bail Conditions and Compliance
-
The judgment reinforces the importance of strict compliance with bail conditions. Courts are increasingly directing the use of Bail Order Management Systems (BOMS) and digital platforms like the e-prison portal to ensure timely release and compliance
-
Practitioners must ensure that their clients adhere to all bail conditions, including cooperation in trial proceedings and refraining from any criminal activity, to avoid cancellation of bail
-
The judgment also underscores the need for verification of identity, residence proof, and Aadhaar cards of both the applicant and sureties, reflecting the courts' emphasis on ensuring accountability and preventing misuse of bail liberty
