Allahabad High Court
RAJKUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Rajkumar in a criminal case (Crime No. 179 of 2026) alleging abduction and forced sexual relations with a major girl. The prosecution’s FIR alleged that the accused enticed the victim away, while the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the CrPC were contradictory, and the medical report showed no injuries. The applicant argued that the victim was in a consensual relationship, had left voluntarily, had no prior criminal record, and that a charge sheet had already been filed, removing the need for custodial interrogation. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual contradictions. After weighing the contradictions, the medical evidence, and the nature of the offence, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to standard conditions and sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the victim's statements under Sections 180 and 183 CrPC are contradictory.
- Whether the absence of physical injury and lack of prior criminal record justify granting bail.
- Whether the filing of a charge sheet eliminates the necessity for custodial interrogation.
- Whether the nature of the alleged offence warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 180, 183, 64(1), 87
Subjects
- bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 180 CrPC
- Section 183 CrPC
- contradictory statements
- medical examination report
- abduction
- sexual assault
- surety
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32298 of 2026
Rajkumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anubhav Srivastava, Kripa Shankar
Pandey, Sunil Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, counsel for the applicant, Ms. Mayuri
Mehrotra, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail during trial in Case Crime No. 179 of 2026, under Sections
64(1) and 87 BNS, 2023, Police Station- Shahabad, District Rampur.
3. Counsel for the applicant submitted that as per the prosecution story, in
the FIR allegation has been made that the applicant has enticed away the
daughter of the first informant, who is admittedly major. However, the
victim in her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS though admitted
that she was in relationship with the applicant but the victim in her statement
recorded under Section 183 BNSS made allegation that the applicant has
forcibly abducted her and taken her at some unknown place and after
applying vermilion on her head established physical relationship against her
wishes. It is further submitted that the medical examination report of the
victim does not show any mark of injury or any sexual assault. The correct
fact is that the victim was in relationship with the applicant and being major
she herself left the house with the applicant and when the father of the victim
lodged the FIR, then the victim returned back. It is further submitted that the
statement of the victim under Section 183 BNSS was recorded at the
instance of her father. It is further submitted that the applicant has no
criminal history. It is further submitted that charge sheet has been filed in the
present case, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation.
BAIL No. 32298 of 2026
2
The applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since
27.07.2026. 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 State Law Officer for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of
learned counsel for the parties; taking into account the contradiction in the
statements of the victim recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS, coupled
with the medical examination report of the victim and keeping in view the
nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused 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. Accordingly, the bail application is
allowed.
6. Let the applicant- Rajkumar 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.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
8. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
BAIL No. 32298 of 2026
3
verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
9. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of
computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website
of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel with the
undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.
10. 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.
11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
concerned Jail Superintendent via e-mail or on e-prison portal and Trial
Court via e-mode 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 as well as Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan and others Vs. State of
Jharkhand and another, in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 169 of 2025,
decided on 29.05.2026.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
September 11, 2026
CS/-
Digitally signed by :-
CHANDAN SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…