Allahabad High Court
MUNSHADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for Munshad, who is charged with rape under Sections 64(1) and 351(2) BNS. The applicant contended that the FIR was lodged after a delay of one and a half years, the victim, a major lady, did not support the allegation and had indicated that the last incident occurred three months ago, suggesting consent, and that the case was filed to pressure him after his wife lodged a complaint. The State opposed bail, pointing to obscene photographs of the victim recovered from the accused’s mobile phone. The Court, after examining the victim’s statements, the alleged consent, and noting that no photographs had been made public, held that the circumstances warranted the grant of bail. Accordingly, the Court ordered the applicant’s release on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and imposed standard bail conditions, expressly limiting the order to the bail question and not expressing any view on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted under Section 483 BNS in a rape case where the FIR is delayed and the victim alleges consent.
- Whether the presence of obscene photographs on the accused’s mobile phone justifies denial of bail.
- Whether the victim’s lack of support for the allegation and statements of consent affect the bail decision.
- Whether the accused’s prior criminal history influences the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 180, 183, 351(2), 483, 64(1)
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- delay in FIR
- victim consent
- obscene photographs
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Section 483
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29323 of 2026
Munshad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raj Kumar Singh, Rajat Aren
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Rajat Aren, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jai Krishna
Chaurasiya, learned State Law Officer for the State-respondents and perused
the record.
2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer
to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 98 of 2026 under Sections 64(1),
351(2) BNS, registered at Police Station Nanauta, District Saharanpur during
pendency of the trial.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that FIR has been
lodged after delay of one and a half year and the victim is a major lady who
has not supported the allegation of rape on her. It is further submitted that
the victim has stated before the doctor that the last incident of rape took
place three months ago. It is further submitted that before lodging of the
present case, wife of the applicant has lodged a case against the applicant
and the victim alleging therein that they were in illicit relationship and the
victim has lodged the present case in order to pressurize the applicant to get
her name exonerated from the aforesaid case lodged by his wife. It is further
submitted that on perusal of the statements 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 as she was in consensual
relationship with the applicant. It is further submitted that applicant has
criminal history of one case which has been lodged by the wife of the
BAIL No. 29323 of 2026
2
applicant against him and the victim and he has been languishing in jail
since 02.5.2026 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if
granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of
cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
4. On the other hand, learned State Law Officer opposed the prayer for grant
of bail to the applicant and submits that during investigation, mobile phone
of the applicant was recovered in which, some obscene photographs of the
victim have been found.
5. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that no photograph
or video has been made viral by the applicant.
6. As per the FIR, applicant is said to have clicked some photographs of the
victim while she was taking a bath and by showing the said photographs, he
is said to have committed rape on the victim for one and a half years. The
victim is major ad she has stated before the doctor that the last incident of
rape took place some three months ago. Before lodging of the present case,
wife of the applicant has lodged a case against the applicant and the victim
alleging therein that they were in illicit relationship. On perusal of the
statements 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. No photograph or video as alleged has been made viral by
the applicant though some obscene photographs have been found in the
mobile phone of the applicant as pointed out by the State Law Officer.
Applicant has criminal history of one case which has been lodged by the
wife of the applicant against him and the victim and he has been languishing
in jail since 02.5.2026.
7. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected
from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find
it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED.
8. Let the applicant Munshad involved in the aforesaid case crime be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned
with the following conditions:-
BAIL No. 29323 of 2026
3
(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 not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)
recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek
any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are
present in the trial court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of
determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free
to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led
unaffected by anything said in this order.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
September 9, 2026
Madhurima
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…