Allahabad High Court
SANJAYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sanjay, accused of rape under IPC sections 70(1), 351(2) and 115(2). The applicant claimed false implication, a six‑day delay in filing the FIR, and that the victim’s statement and medico‑legal report indicated consent. The State opposed bail, relying on the victim’s recorded statement alleging gang rape. The Court, noting the delay, the lack of supporting medical evidence, the applicant’s clean record, the bail already granted to a co‑accused, and the Supreme Court’s recent guidelines on bail, decided that bail was appropriate without commenting on the merits. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed subject to standard conditions and verification of identity and sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the six‑day delay in lodging the FIR and alleged consent of the victim justify granting bail in a rape case.
- Whether the applicant’s clean criminal record and the bail granted to a co‑accused affect the bail decision.
- Whether the lack of corroborative medico‑legal evidence undermines the charge of rape for bail considerations.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 180, 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 351(2), 70(1)
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- false implication
- FIR delay
- consent
- overcrowded jails
- medico‑legal report
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27052 of 2026
Sanjay
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandra Prakash Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Chandra Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri O.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 60 of 2026, under Sections 70(1),
351(2), 115(2) BNS, Police Station Rajepur, District Farrukhabad, 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 the FIR has
been lodged after a delay of 06 days and on perusal of the statement of the
victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS and other attending
facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that she is a consenting
party. It is further submitted that the victim is a major lady and medico-
legal report of the victim does not support the commission of rape on her.
It is also submitted that co-accused Ajeet Kumar has already been granted
bail by this Court vide order dated 29.6.2026 passed in Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No. 24882 of 2026. It is also submitted that the
applicant has been languishing in jail since 4.7.2026 and he is having no
criminal history. It is lastly submitted that in case the applicant is granted
bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial
proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail
but could not dispute the aforesaid facts, however, it is submitted that the
BAIL No. 27052 of 2026
2
victim in her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS has
stated that the applicant and co-accused Ajeet committed rape on her.
5. FIR has been lodged after a delay of 06 days and as per FIR, the
applicant and some other persons including co-accused Ajeet are said to
have taken away the victim in a car to a hotel and she was subjected to
gang rape by administering her some intoxicated drinks. The victim is a
major lady and from the call detail records she was in constant tough with
the applicant and co-accused Ajeet. Medico-legal report of the victim
does not support the commission of rape on her and co-accused Ajeet
Kumar has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated
29.6.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24882 of 2026.
The applicant has been languishing in jail since 4.7.2026 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- Sanjay involved in the aforementioned 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, 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.
BAIL No. 27052 of 2026
3
(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.)
September 14, 2026
Abhishek
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…