Allahabad High Court

ANIL KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The court held that prima facie the applicant made out a case for bail and therefore granted bail.

Summary

Anil Kumar was charged with raping a mentally challenged girl on 30 September 2025. The prosecution alleged the assault, but there was no medical evidence and the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the CrPC indicated she had consented. The applicant pleaded innocence, argued the FIR was filed promptly, and offered a personal bond and sureties. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. Considering the lack of corroborative medical evidence and the victim’s statement, the court found a prima facie case for bail and ordered the applicant’s release on bail with conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a rape case where the victim’s statement indicates consent and there is no medical evidence.
Whether the absence of medical corroboration and the victim’s statement under Section 183 CrPC create a prima facie case for bail.
Whether the applicant’s personal bond and sureties satisfy the conditions for bail under the Indian Penal Code and CrPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 183
Indian Penal Code — s. 332(B), 351(3), 352, 64(2)(K)

Subjects

bail
rape
consent
medical evidence
prima facie
Indian Penal Code
Criminal Procedure Code
victim statement

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 580 of 2026

Anil Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Kumar Pandey, Manu Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.129 out of 259)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Manu Sharma, Sri Dinesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsels for
the applicant, Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned State Law Officer for the State and
perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.229 of 2025, under Sections
64(2)(K), 332(B), 351(3), 352 BNS, Police Station Sinduriya, District
Maharajganj, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape
with the victim on 30.09.2025, who is stated to be a mentally challenged
girl.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
FIR is too prompt, as it was instituted within 7 hours. There is no medical
corroboration of the incident, as the medical examination has been refused.
The statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS indicates that
she was fit to depose, whereby her statement indicates her to be a consenting
party, as her father is stated to have reached there after hearing her shrieks
and the applicant ran away from the place of occurrence biting her on her
chest. The allegations of biting the victim on her chest also do not stand
corroborated by any medical evidence whatsoever. The applicant has no
BAIL No. 580 of 2026
2

criminal history and is in jail since 01.10.2025. He undertakes to cooperate
with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application
but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS,
which indicates her consent and that there is no medical corroboration of the
incident, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case
for bail. The bail application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant- Anil Kumar, be released on bail on furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned,
subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not
tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the
trial court as required.

9. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
(Ravi Kant)

Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…