Allahabad High Court
RAJ GUPTA @ MOHD KAYYUM SAIFIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Raj Gupta @ Mohd Kayyum Saifi, who was arrested in connection with a case alleging that he established a physical relationship with a married woman under false pretences of a job and was accused of rape. The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged after a two‑year delay, lacked specific details, and that the victim’s statements and medical report indicated consent, rendering the allegations unsubstantiated. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences and the applicant’s prior criminal case. The Court, taking note of overcrowded prisons, pendency of trials, and recent Supreme Court pronouncements in Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI, Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P., and the Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, held that the applicant was entitled to bail without expressing a view on the merits. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or further criminal activity.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the nature of the offences alleged (rape, criminal intimidation, etc.)
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and lack of corroborative evidence justify bail
- Whether the applicant's prior criminal history precludes bail
- Whether the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses exists
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 115(2), 319(2), 351(2), 64(2)M, 89
Subjects
- bail
- rape allegation
- false implication
- consent
- overcrowded prisons
- criminal procedure
- Supreme Court precedent
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30676 of 2026
Raj Gupta @ Mohd Kayyum Saifi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dileep Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pankaj Mishra
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Dileep Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri
Pankaj Mishra, learned counsel for the first informant and Shri B.P. Maurya,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 221 of 2026, under Sections 64(2)M,
115(2), 351(2), 319(2), 89 of B.N.S., Police Station C.B. Ganj, District
Bareilly, during the pendency of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case though there is no incriminating
material against him. It is further submitted that the victim is a major
married lady and it is alleged that the applicant established physical
relationship with the victim on the false promise of securing a job to her. It is
further submitted that there is no mention of any date and time of the
incident and the first information report has been lodged after delay of 2
years. It is further submitted that on perusal of the contents of the first
information report and the statement of the victim recorded under Sections
180 and 183 BNSS, it appears that she is a consenting party and her medico
legal report does not support the allegation of commission rape on her. It is
further submitted that the applicant is having criminal history of one case,
which has been duly explained in the memo of application and the applicant
has been languishing in jail since 04.06.2026, in case, he is granted bail, he
will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial
BAIL No. 30676 of 2026
2
proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A.
have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
6. As per first information report, the applicant is said to have established
physical relationship with the victim on the false promise of securing a job
to her and he continued to establish physical relationship with her, however,
the victim is a major married lady and there is no mention of any date and
time of the incident and the first information report has been lodged after
delay of 2 years. It is further submitted that on perusal of the contents of the
first information report and the statement of the victim recorded under
Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, it appears that she is a consenting party and
her medico legal report does not support the allegation of commission rape
on her and the victim has not shown the place of occurrence to the
Investigating Officer and there is no site plan has been annexed with the
charge sheet and apart from the above, there is no other witness of fact in the
charge sheet. It is further submitted that the applicant is having criminal
history of one case, which has been duly explained in the memo of
application and the applicant has been languishing in jail since 04.06.2026.
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- Raj Gupta @ Mohd Kayyum Saifi 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
BAIL No. 30676 of 2026
3
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.
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
Jail Superintendent, Sambhal 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.
September 23, 2026
RKM
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…