Allahabad High Court
ARYAN KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Aryan Kumar, who was arrested in a case alleging rape and false promise of marriage under IPC sections 69, 115(2) and 351(3). The applicant contended that the alleged victim was a consenting adult, the medical report did not support a rape charge, and he had no prior criminal record, having been in custody since 26‑06‑2026. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual contentions. Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI (2025) and Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P. (2024), as well as the policy on bail from the 2023 Suo Motu writ, the court, without opining on the merits, granted bail with standard conditions. The order directed verification of identities, issuance of the bail order through the Bail Order Management System, and communication to the applicant via e‑prison portal.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in an alleged rape case where the victim is alleged to be a consenting adult and the medical report does not substantiate rape.
- Whether the accused’s lack of prior criminal history and the problem of jail overcrowding justify bail.
- Whether the allegations fall within the ambit of IPC sections 69, 115(2) and 351(3).
- Whether bail can be granted without a substantive determination on the merits of the case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 180, 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 351(3), 69
Subjects
- bail
- rape allegation
- consent
- Indian Penal Code
- Criminal Procedure Code
- jail overcrowding
- Supreme Court precedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30911 of 2026
Aryan Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jitendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sunil Kumar Saroj
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. List revised. Heard Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri Ashish Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State. The name of
Mr. Sunil Kumar Saroj, appears in the cause list as counsel for the first
informant but he is not present.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 175 of 2026, under Sections 69,
115(2), 351(3) BNS, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bijnor 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
and other attending facts and circumstances, it appears that she is a
consenting party. It is further submitted that the victim is a major lady
aged about 26 years years 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 26.6.2026 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.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail
but could not dispute the aforesaid facts
BAIL No. 30911 of 2026
2
5. As per the allegation in the FIR, the applicant is said to have
established physical relationship 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 and other attending facts and
circumstances, it appears that she is a consenting party. The victim is a
major lady aged about 26 years years and the medico-legal report of the
victim does not support the commission of rape on her. The applicant has
been languishing in jail since 26.6.2026 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- Aryan Kumar 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
BAIL No. 30911 of 2026
3
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.
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.)
October 1, 2026
Abhishek
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…