Allahabad High Court
ZEESHANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Zeeshan, accused of rape under IPC sections 64(1), 333 and 351(3). The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged three days after the alleged incident, the victim's medico‑legal report did not substantiate rape, there was no alarm raised, and he had no prior criminal record. The State, relying on the victim’s statements under CrPC sections 180 and 183 and a witness account, opposed bail. The Court, noting contradictions in the victim’s statements, the delay in filing the FIR, the applicant’s clean record, jail overcrowding, and Supreme Court precedents on bail, decided to grant bail without commenting on the merits. The order released the applicant on bail subject to a personal bond, sureties and several conditions, and directed procedural steps for his release.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a rape case where the FIR was delayed and the medico‑legal report does not support the allegation.
- Whether the absence of an alarm by the victim and the accused’s clean record justify bail despite the seriousness of the offence.
- Whether the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Kapil Wadhawan and Maya Tiwari cases apply to this bail application.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 180, 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 333, 351(3), 64(1)
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- false implication
- delay in FIR
- medico‑legal report
- jail overcrowding
- Supreme Court bail guidelines
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30625 of 2026
Zeeshan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashutosh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Javed Alam
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. List revised Heard Sri Ashutosh, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri B.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Javed Alam, 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. 157 of 2026, under Sections 64(1),
333, 351(3) BNS, Police Station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur 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 FIR has been
lodged after a delay of three days. It is further submitted that the victim is
a major married lady and 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 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 counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A.
has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and it is submitted that the
victim in her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS has
stated that the applicant entered the house of the victim and committed
rape on her. It is further submitted by learned AGA that one witness
Mohd. Riyaz has stated in his statement under Section 180 BNSS that he
BAIL No. 30625 of 2026
2
saw the applicant entering the house of the victim and he remained inside
the house for a quite long time and he left the house after scaling the wall
and some noise was heard from her house.
5. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no
mention of raising any alarm by the victim in her statement under
Sections 180 and 183 BNSS.
6. FIR has been lodged after a delay of three days alleging therein that the
applicant entered the house of the victim and committed rape on her,
however, her medico-legal report does not support the allegation of
commission of rape on her and there is no mention that any alarm was
raised by the victim in her statement under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS,
thus, there appears to be material contradictions in her statements. the
applicant has been languishing in jail since 15.7.2026 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- Zeeshan 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. 30625 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 23, 2026
Abhishek
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…