Allahabad High Court
RIYAZ @ RIYAZ MOHAMMADversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Riyaz Mohammad, accused under sections 333, 69 and 79 of the B.N.S. for alleged rape and related offences. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, pointing to contradictory victim statements under sections 180 and 183, lack of video or photographic evidence, and an unsupportive medico‑legal report, and highlighted his clean record and prolonged pre‑trial detention. The prosecution and the first informant opposed bail, relying on a prior anticipatory bail denial and the allegation that the accused had recorded and circulated videos of the victim. The Court, noting the absence of incriminating material, the contradictions in the statements, the applicant’s lack of criminal history, and the policy considerations of jail overcrowding and Supreme Court precedents, decided that bail should be granted without commenting on the merits. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the alleged offences under sections 333, 69 and 79 of the B.N.S.
- Whether the contradictions in the victim's statements and the lack of physical evidence justify granting bail.
- Whether the prior denial of anticipatory bail and the allegation of video evidence affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- anticipatory bail
- rape
- contradictory statements
- video evidence
- jail overcrowding
- Section 333
- Section 69
- Section 79
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30985 of 2026
Riyaz @ Riyaz Mohammad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Najakat Ali
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Syed Fahim Ahmed
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Shri Najakat Ali, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Syed
Fahim Ahmed, learned counsel for the first informant and Shri Uma
Shankar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 352 of 2025, under Sections 333, 69,
79 of B.N.S., Police Station Tanda, District Rampur, during the pendency
of the trial.
3. 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 there are
material contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under
Sections 180 and 183 BNSS as the victim in her statement recorded under
Section 180 BNSS has stated that she was in consensual relationship with
the applicant for the last two years, whereas, the victim in her statement
recorded under Section 183 BNSS has stated that the applicant committed
rape on her. It is further submitted that as per first information report, the
applicant is said to have established physical relationship with the victim
on the false promise of marriage for the last two years. It is further
submitted that the charge sheet in this case has already been submitted and
no video or photo as alleged has been recovered during investigation. It is
further submitted that the medico legal report does not support the
allegation of commission rape on her. It is further submitted that the
BAIL No. 30985 of 2026
2
applicant is having no criminal history and the applicant has been
languishing in jail since 06.08.2026, in case, he 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 has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted by him that the
anticipatory bail application of the applicant was rejected by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.07.2026 passed in
Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 482 BNSS No.4601 of
2026 as the applicant is said to have recorded videos and photos of the
victim and made it viral.
5. On the other hand, learned AGA has also opposed the prayer for bail
and it has been submitted by him that the alleged video is said to have
been transmitted to the mobile phone of the father of the victim by one
Khalid.
6. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the said Khalid
has not been made as an accused.
7. As per first information report, the applicant is said to have established
physical relationship with the victim on the false promise of marriage and
he is also said to have recorded videos and photos of the alleged incident
and made it viral. It is further submitted that there are material
contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180
and 183 BNSS as the victim in her statement recorded under Section 180
BNSS has stated that she was in consensual relationship with the
applicant for the last two years, whereas, the victim in her statement
recorded under Section 183 BNSS has stated that the applicant committed
rape on her. It is further submitted that the charge sheet in this case has
already been submitted and no video or photo as alleged has been
recovered during investigation. It is further submitted that the medico
legal report does not support the allegation of commission rape on her. It
is further submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history and
the applicant has been languishing in jail since 06.08.2026.
8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of
BAIL No. 30985 of 2026
3
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.
9. Accordingly, the present application is ALLOWED.
10. Let the applicant- Riyaz @ Riyaz Mohammad 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.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground
for cancellation of bail.
12. 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.
BAIL No. 30985 of 2026
4
13. 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.
14. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
Jail Superintendent, Rampur 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
RKM
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…