Allahabad High Court

SANJEEVversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 11 May 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

Bail is granted to the accused as the prima facie case for detention is not established.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sanjeev, who is charged under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code for an alleged rape and criminal intimidation arising from FIR No.251 of 2023. The applicant contended that the original FIR pertained only to outraging modesty and that the rape allegation was later added without medical corroboration, noting that the victim’s injuries were not on vital parts of the body. The State opposed bail, but the court noted that only two witnesses had been examined and that the applicant had no prior criminal record, having been in custody since December 2023. Weighing the lack of substantive medical evidence and the subsequent escalation of charges, the court held that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, bail was granted on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of non‑tampering with evidence, non‑intimidation of witnesses, and regular appearance before the trial court.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused in a rape and criminal intimidation case where medical evidence is lacking and the charge was escalated after the FIR
Whether the applicant’s lack of prior criminal record and the stage of trial justify bail

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161, 164
Indian Penal Code — s. 376, 506

Subjects

bail
rape
criminal intimidation
Section 376 IPC
Section 506 IPC
medical evidence
witness testimony
Criminal Procedure Code

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25145 of 2025

Sanjeev
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajai Kumar, Sumat Singh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.109 out of 243)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Ajai Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Sessions Case No.1034 of 2024 (State vs.
Sanjeev), arising out of Case Crime No.251 of 2023, under Sections 376,
506 I.P.C., Police Station Bilsi, District Budaun, during the pendency of
trial.

4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one
was rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
3.4.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11506 of 2024.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Initially, the FIR was instituted regarding outraging the modesty only, but
the allegations have been escalated to that of rape in the statements of victim
recorded U/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as an afterthought. There is no medical
corroboration of the incident. The victim is a 37 years old lady. There are
two contusions sustained by the victim, but the injuries are not on vital part
of the body.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that a case of
physical assault has been converted into a case of rape by the victim. The
BAIL No. 25145 of 2025
2

applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 19.12.2023. As such, the
period of incarceration comes out to be about two and a half years. He
undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but the
submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be
disputed.

8. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned trial
court. As per the said status report dated 13.11.2025, two witnesses have
been examined.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the fact that the allegation of rape has been made subsequently
coupled by the fact the injuries sustained by the victim are not on the vital
part of the body, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a
case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant- Sanjeev, be released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to
verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not tamper with
evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as
required.

11. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 12, 2026
Vikas Verma

Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…