Allahabad High Court
RAHULversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail and allowed the bail application.
Summary
Rahul was arrested in connection with a case under IPC sections 69, 115(2), 351(3) and 352, alleged to have established a physical relationship with a married woman by falsely promising marriage, administered drugs, and caused a miscarriage. The victim’s statements under CrPC sections 180 and 183 suggested consent, and the medico‑legal report did not support a rape charge. Rahul, who has no prior criminal record, had been in custody since 8 June 2026 and sought bail. The State and the informant opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the allegations. Relying on Supreme Court precedents concerning bail, the overcrowding of prisons, and the lack of conclusive evidence, the High Court granted bail with conditions, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving alleged false promise of marriage, administration of drugs, and miscarriage.
- Whether the consent indicated in the victim’s statements and the absence of a rape finding justify bail despite the seriousness of the alleged offences.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 180, 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115, 351, 352, 69
Subjects
- bail
- false promise of marriage
- consent
- miscarriage
- IPC sections 69,115,351,352
- CrPC sections 180,183
- overcrowded prisons
- Supreme Court bail guidelines
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28301 of 2026
Rahul
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Narendra Nath Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sunil Kumar Yadav, Vishal
Vishwakarma
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Narendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri C.S. Saran, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav,
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. 113 of 2026, under Sections 69,
115(2), 351(3), 352 BNS, Police Station Obra, District Sonbhadra, 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 on perusal of
the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, it
appears that she is a consenting party. It is further submitted that the
victim is a major and married lady and as per allegation in the FIR, the
applicant is said to have established physical relationship with the victim
on the false promise of marriage. It is submitted that since the victim is a
married lady, allegation of establishing physical relationship with her on
the false promise of marriage is not made out and at best it can be said
that it is consensual relationship between them. 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 8.6.2026 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.
BAIL No. 28301 of 2026
2
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail and it is submitted that the applicant
established physical relationship on the false promise of marriage and he
administered some drugs to her and thereafter she suffered miscarriage.
5. Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the prayer for bail but could not
dispute the aforesaid facts.
6. The victim is a major married lady having a child of four years. As per
the allegation in the FIR, the applicant is said to have established
physical relationship with the victim on the false promise of marriage,
however, it is submitted that on perusal of the statement of the victim
recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, it appears that she is a
consenting party and the medico-legal report of the victim does not
support the commission of rape on her. Tthe applicant has been
languishing in jail since 8.6.2026 and he is having no criminal history.
7. 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.
8. Accordingly, the present application is ALLOWED.
9. Let the applicant- Rahul 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
BAIL No. 28301 of 2026
3
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.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground
for cancellation of bail.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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 8, 2026
Abhishek
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…