Allahabad High Court
REHAN @ AZAD ANSARIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Rehan @ Azad Ansari, who was charged under sections of the B.N.S., the POCSO Act, the Income‑Tax Act and the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act for alleged rape, video‑recording and forced conversion. The applicant claimed false implication, highlighted a three‑year delay in filing the FIR, the absence of any video or photographic evidence, the victim’s refusal to undergo a medical examination and his clean criminal record. The prosecution argued that the victim’s statements under sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S. implicated the accused and that a locked mobile phone could not be examined. The court, taking note of the seriousness of the allegations, the lack of corroborative material, the principle of bail in the interest of liberty, overcrowded jails and Supreme Court precedents (Kapil Wadhawan vs CBI, Maya Tiwari vs State UP, and the Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail), held that bail should be granted. The bail was ordered on the condition of a personal bond, two sureties and compliance with standard bail conditions. The order also directed verification of identity documents and electronic transmission of the release order to the jail.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a case involving alleged rape, video‑recording, and forced religious conversion despite the seriousness of the charges.
- Whether the three‑year delay in lodging the FIR and the lack of physical evidence justify bail.
- Whether the applicant’s clean criminal record and the principle of jail decongestion outweigh the prosecution’s concerns.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 180, 183, 351(2), 351(3), 352, 64
- Income Tax Act — s. 67
- POCSO Act — s. 3, 4
- U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act — s. 3, 5(3)
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- POCSO
- forced conversion
- delay in FIR
- jail overcrowding
- Supreme Court precedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42345 of 2025
Rehan @ Azad Ansari
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arjit Srivastava, Rajesh Kumar Singh,
Usha Srivastava, Vinod Kumar
Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kiran Rani, Nilesh Kumar
Dubey, Shashi Shekhar Maurya
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant,
Nilesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the first informant, Ms. Kiran
Rani, learned counsel for the High Court Legal Services Committee and
Shri B.P. Singh, 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. 554 of 2025, under Sections 64, 352,
351(2), 351(3) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 67
of I.T. Act and Sections 3/5(3) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful
Conversion of Religion Act, Police Station Chauri Chaura, District
Gorakhpur, 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 the first
information report has been lodged after delay of three years and the incident
is said to have taken place on 14.11.2022. It is further submitted that on
perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183
BNSS and from her conduct, it appears that she was in consensual
relationship with the applicant and no video or photo as alleged has been
found during investigation. It is further submitted that the victim is a
major lady and she has refused to undergo medico legal examination. It is
BAIL No. 42345 of 2025
2
further submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history and the
applicant has been languishing in jail since 07.11.2025, 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, learned counsel for
the High Court Legal Services Committee and learned A.G.A. have
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted by them
that as per FSL report, the lock of the mobile phone recovered from the
applicant could not be opened as it was face lock. It is further submitted
by them that the victim in her statement recorded under Sections 180 and
183 BNSS has stated that the applicant committed rape on the victim and
recorded video of the said incident and made it viral and he is also exerted
pressure on the victim to get her religion converted from Hinduism to
Islam for the purpose of marriage.
5. As per first information report, the applicant is said to have committed
rape on her in the year 2022 and is also said to have recorded a video of
the said incident and made it viral. It is further submitted that the first
information report has been lodged after delay of three years and on perusal
of the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS
and from her conduct, it appears that she was in consensual relationship with
the applicant and no video or photo as alleged has been found during
investigation. It is further submitted that the victim is a major lady and
she has refused to undergo medico legal examination. It is further
submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history and the
applicant has been languishing in jail since 07.11.2025.
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
BAIL No. 42345 of 2025
3
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- Rehan @ Azad Ansari 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.
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
Jail Superintendent, Gorakhpur via e-mail or e-prison portal within 24
hours in compliance of the order of the Apex Court in the case of Policy
BAIL No. 42345 of 2025
4
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.)
September 18, 2026
RKM
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…