Allahabad High Court
SONUversusState of U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AJAY BHANOT
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as there is no material risk of flight, tampering with evidence, or re‑offending, and the prosecution's case lacks sufficient corroboration.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sonu, who is in custody for alleged offences under Sections 376, 452 and 506 of the IPC arising from a dispute with the alleged victim. The applicant argued that the relationship with the victim was consensual, that there is no medical evidence of rape, and that the FIR contains inconsistencies and is being used to coerce marriage. The court noted that the applicant has no prior criminal record, is not a flight risk, and has cooperated with the investigation. Without delving into the merits of the criminal allegations, the court concluded that the reasons for denial of bail were not substantiated. Accordingly, bail was granted on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of non‑tampering with evidence and attendance at trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the offences alleged under the IPC.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of flight, witness tampering, or re‑offending.
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 180, 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376, 452, 506
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- criminal intimidation
- IPC
- evidence
- flight risk
- sureties
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37352 of 2024
Sonu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Kumar Dubey,
Rakesh Kumar Pandey,
Ruchita Jain
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 49
HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.
Matter is taken up in the revised call.
By means of bail application the applicant has prayed
to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.574 of 2024 at
Police Station-Kotwali Lalitpur, District-Lalitpur under
Sections 376, 452, 506 IPC. The applicant is in jail
since 09.07.2024.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by
the learned trial court on 07.09.2024.
The following arguments made by Ms. Ruchita Jain,
learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could
not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Jitendra Kumar
Shukla, learned counsel for the informant and Shri
Rishi Chaddha, learned AGA from the record, entitle
the applicant for grant of bail:
1. The applicant and the victim were intimate and had
consensual relations.
2. The F.I.R. is the result of the aforesaid relationship
going awry.
BAIL No. 37352 of 2024
2
3. The applicant never gave a plighted word to marry
the victim.
4. There is no medical evidence to corroborate the
commission of rape.
5. Major inconsistencies in the F.I.R. statements of the
victim under Sections 180 BNSS and Section 183
BNSS discredit the prosecution case.
6. The F.I.R. is being leveraged to force applicant to
marry the victim.
7. The applicant does not have any criminal history
apart from the instant case.
8. The applicant does not have any criminal history
apart from the instant case.
9. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being
a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the
investigation and undertakes to join the trial
proceedings. There is no possibility of the applicant
influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or
reoffending.
In the light of the preceding discussion and without
making any observations on the merits of the case, the
bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant-Sonu be released on bail in the
aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court below. The following
conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or
influence any witness during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on
the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties
BAIL No. 37352 of 2024
3
after due application of mind in light of the judgement
passed by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P.
Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482
No.2613 of 2023).
The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail
of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated
by arbitrary demands of sureties, or onerous conditions
which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the
applicant.
February 25, 2026
Ashish Tripathi
(Ajay Bhanot,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…