Allahabad High Court
ARUNversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that despite the gravity of the alleged offence, the contradictions in the victim’s statements, absence of supporting medico‑legal evidence, the applicant’s clean record and the Supreme Court’s bail guidelines entitled the applicant to be released on bail.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Arun, accused of gang rape under Sections 137(2), 61(2), 70(1) and 127(3) of the CrPC. The applicant argued that the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 were contradictory and that the medico‑legal report did not support the charge, also noting his clean record and prolonged pre‑trial detention. The State contended that the victim’s statements implicated the applicant and co‑accused. Referring to Supreme Court precedents on bail and the need to decongest prisons, the court, without expressing a view on the merits, held that the applicant was entitled to bail. Accordingly, the bail was granted subject to personal bond, sureties and standard conditions. The order also directed verification of identity documents and prompt release through the Bail Order Management System.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a serious offence such as alleged gang rape when there are contradictions in the victim’s statements and lack of corroborative medical evidence.
- Whether the applicant’s right to bail outweighs the nature of the alleged crime, considering overcrowded jails and Supreme Court bail guidelines.
- Whether the contradictions in the statements affect the existence of a prima facie case sufficient to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 127(3), 137(2), 180, 183, 61(2), 70(1)
Subjects
- bail
- CrPC
- gang rape
- contradictory statements
- medico‑legal evidence
- overcrowded prisons
- Supreme Court bail guidelines
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14450 of 2026
Arun
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Girraj Singh, Km. Anshika Kesharwani
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Imtiaz Husain
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Girraj Singh and Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the
applicant and Sri B.P. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri P.K.
Shukla, holding brief of Sri Imtiaz Husain, learned counsel for the first
informant.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 302 of 2025, under Sections 137(2),
61(2), 70(1), 127(3) BNS, Police Station Kundarki, District Moradabad,
during the pendency of the trial.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and there are
material contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under
Sections 180 and 183 BNSS as she in her statement under Section 180
BNSS has not stated anything against the applicant or regarding
commission of sexual assault on her whereas in her statement under
Section 183 BNSS she has stated that the applicant and three other co-
accused committed gang rape on her. It is further submitted that the age of
the victim has been found to be 18 years as per her radio-logical
examination, however, there is no educational record of the victim
regarding her age. It is further submitted that the medico-legal report of
the victim does not support the commission of rape on her. It is also
submitted that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 9.11.2025
and he is having no criminal history. It is lastly submitted that in case the
BAIL No. 14450 of 2026
2
applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would
cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant learned A.G.A. have
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid
facts, however, it is submitted that the victim in her first and subsequent
statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS has stated that the
applicant and three other co-accused committed gang rape on her.
5. As per the allegation in the FIR, the applicant and co-accused Shivam
is said to have enticed away the daughter of the first informant aged about
13 years, however, there appears tobe material contradictions in the
statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS as she
in her statement under Section 180 BNSS has not stated anything against
the applicant or regarding commission of sexual assault on her whereas in
her statement under Section 183 BNSS she has stated that the applicant
and three other co-accused committed gang rape on her. The age of the
victim has been found to be 18 years as per her radio-logical
examination, however, there is no educational record of the victim
regarding her age. The medico-legal report of the victim does not support
the commission of rape on her. The applicant has been languishing in jail
since 9.11.2025 and he is having no criminal history.
6. 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.
7. Accordingly, the present application is ALLOWED.
8. Let the applicant- Arun involved in the aforementioned crime be
BAIL No. 14450 of 2026
3
released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each
in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the
following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely
without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or
commission of any crime after being released on bail.
(iv) The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the
bond executed by him.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant as well
as sureties should be verified by the court concerned.
11. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to
the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to
ensure early release of the applicant.
12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
concerned Jail Superintendent via e-mail or e-prison portal within 24
hours in compliance of the order of the Apex Court in the case of Policy
Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4
of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
October 1, 2026
Abhishek
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…