Allahabad High Court
SURAJ PASWANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the material contradictions in the evidence, the applicant’s clean record, and the need to address jail overcrowding justify granting bail in the alleged rape case.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Suraj Paswan, who was arrested in a rape case (CrPC Sec. 64(1), 351(3)) and had been in custody since July 15, 2026. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, pointing to material contradictions between the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the Evidence Act and the FIR, and noted that the victim, a 19‑year‑old woman, refused a medico‑legal examination. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual matrix. Relying on Supreme Court precedents in Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI (2025) and Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P. (2024), as well as the policy on bail issued in 2023, the court held that the contradictions, the applicant’s clean record, and the need to alleviate jail overcrowding justified granting bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed with standard conditions and verification procedures.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a non‑bailable offence of alleged rape despite the seriousness of the charge.
- Whether contradictions in the victim’s statements and her refusal to undergo a medico‑legal examination affect the bail decision.
- Whether the applicant’s lack of prior criminal history and the problem of jail overcrowding warrant bail.
- How the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI and Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P. should be applied to this bail application.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 351(3), 64(1)
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 180, 183
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- false implication
- evidence contradictions
- medico‑legal examination refusal
- jail overcrowding
- Supreme Court bail guidelines
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29018 of 2026
Suraj Paswan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nilesh Kumar Dubey, Shashi Shekhar
Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Miss Namrata Saxena, holding brief of Sri S.S. Maurya, learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri C.S. Saran, 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. 220 of 2026, under Sections 64(1),
351(3) BNS, Police Station Jhangaha District Gorakhpur, 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 BNS from the contents of the FIR regarding place
of occurrence. It is further submitted the victim is major girl aged about
19 years and she has refused to undergo medico-legal examination. It is
also submitted that the applicant has been languishing in jail since
15.7.2026 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.
5. As per the allegation in the FIR, the applicant is said to have
committed rape on the victim aged about 19 years, however, there appears
BAIL No. 29018 of 2026
2
to be material contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under
Sections 180 and 183 BNS from the contents of the FIR regarding place
of occurrence. The victim is major girl aged about 19 years and she has
refused to undergo medico-legal examination. The applicant has been
languishing in jail since 15.7.2026 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- Suraj Paswan 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.
(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.
BAIL No. 29018 of 2026
3
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 8, 2026
Abhishek
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…