Allahabad High Court

RAHULversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 30 September 2026
Bench: SAMIT GOPAL

Holding

The appellant is entitled to bail and the appeal is allowed, setting aside the Special Judge’s order.

Summary

The appellant Rahul was charged under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and several IPC provisions for alleged rape and caste‑related abuse following a broken marriage promise. The victim, a 20‑year‑old woman, had given contradictory statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the CrPC, and refused a medical examination. The Special Judge had denied bail, prompting Rahul to appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act seeking to set aside the order and obtain bail. The High Court examined the inconsistencies, noted the absence of any material indicating tampering of evidence, and concluded that bail could be granted with strict conditions. Accordingly, the Court set aside the Special Judge’s order, granted bail on personal bond and sureties, and imposed conditions to ensure the appellant’s presence and non‑interference with the trial.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant is entitled to bail under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act despite the serious nature of the allegations.
Whether the impugned bail denial order of the Special Judge should be set aside.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 173(4), 174-A, 180, 183, 209, 229-A, 251, 269, 313, 82, 84
Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 191(2), 333, 351(3), 352, 69
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14A(2), 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(v)

Subjects

bail
SC/ST Act
rape
false promise of marriage
evidence contradictions
criminal procedure
Section 14A

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10008 of 2026

Rahul
.....Appellant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ankit Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Vikas Mishra

Court No. - 76
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Ankit Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Vikas
Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/first informant and Sri
Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the
record. Although his name is printed in the cause list but vakalatnama is
not on record. Office to trace out the same and place it on record and
make a note in the order sheet about it.

3. This criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant Rahul with the
prayer to set-aside the impugned judgment and order dated 02.09.2026
passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Bail
Application No. 1946 of 2026 (Rahul Vs. State of U.P. and another)
arising out of Case Crime No. 217 of 2026, under Sections 191(2),
115(2), 352, 351(3), 333, 69 BNS and Section 3(1)(Da),
3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Ramkola, District
Kushinagar and with a further prayer to release the appellant on bail in the
aforesaid case.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 16.05.2026 by Smt. Thagi Devi
naming the appellant, three other persons and some unknown person as
accused on the basis of an application moved under Section 173(4) BNSS
alleging therein that Rahul a resident of neighbourhood of the village used
to made a false promise to marry with her daughter since last one year and
used to commit rape upon her. Later on, her daughter came to know that
his marriage has been fixed somewhere else on which she asked about it
from him to which he used caste related abuses and refused marriage. On
09.07.2025 at about 07:00 pm he and other accused came to her house
and assaulted her daughter and Rahul then forcibly took her on a
motorcycle to his house where he committed rape upon her. Police was
informed on 112 number for an FIR but no action was taken. She gave an
application for an FIR on which no action was taken and then an
CRLA No. 10008 of 2026
2

application was sent by registered post to the Superintendent of Police
concerned on which also no action was taken. Subsequently, she moved
an application before the court concerned being Misc. Case No. 590 of
2026 which under some confusion was dismissed on 08.12.2025. She is
moving this application with the prayers that the orders be passed for
lodging of the FIR and punishing the accused.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the victim is a
major girl aged about 20 years. It is submitted that the victim and the
appellant were in a relationship since last one year on some discussion of
marriage which could not materialize. It is further submitted that the
victim although has supported the prosecution case in her statement under
Section 180 BNSS which is as per FIR but in her statement under Section
183 BNSS she states that the appellant was habitual to intoxication and
thus she refused marriage with him. It is submitted further that the victim
was produced before the doctor who refused her medical examination. It
is further submitted that previously an application under Section 173(4)
BNSS of the informant was dismissed by the court concerned on
08.12.2025 after which a second application was moved on which an
order was passed for lodging of the FIR in pursuance of which the present
FIR has been lodged. It is submitted while placing para 10 of the affidavit
that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant on
17.08.2026. The appellant has no criminal history as stated in para 35 of
the bail application in appeal and is in jail since 15.08.2026.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and State
opposed the appeal and prayer for bail .

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the
records, it is evident that the victim is a major girl. She was in relationship
with the appellant since last one year on some discussion of marriage.
There are contradictions in the statements recorded during investigation
under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS. The investigation of the matter has
been concluded and charge sheet has been submitted. The victim has
refused her medical examination.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of
evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the
possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that
the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Let the appellant- Rahul 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 concerned with the following
conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

i) The appellant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not
CRLA No. 10008 of 2026
3

harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

ii) The appellant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on
every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner
whatsoever.

(iii) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not
seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses
are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open
for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in
accordance with law.

(iv) The appellant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner
whatsoever. In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial
and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84
BNSS/82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if appellant fails to appear before
the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall
initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section
209 BNS/174-A I.P.C.

(v) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3)
recording of statement under Section 251 BNSS/313 Cr.P.C. If in the
opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without
sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such
default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance
with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269
BNS/229-A IPC.

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to
conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the appellant.

10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by
court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned
above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the
appellant to prison.

11. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed.

12. The impugned judgment and order dated 02.09.2026 passed by
Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Kushinagar at Padrauna is hereby set aside.

(Samit Gopal,J.)
October 1, 2026
M. ARIF

Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD ARIF
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…