Allahabad High Court

IMRANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 17 September 2026
Bench: SAMIT GOPAL

Holding

The appeal is allowed; the Special Judge’s order is set aside and bail is granted to Imran with conditions.

Summary

The appellant Imran appealed against the order of the Special Judge dated 24 March 2026 in a case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, seeking bail. The FIR, lodged on 22 January 2026 by a 40‑year‑old married woman, alleged rape, blackmail and theft, but was filed after an unexplained seven‑month delay and no video, photographs or jewellery were recovered during investigation. The appellant argued that he was falsely implicated, had no prior criminal record, and that the evidence was insufficient to justify continued detention. The High Court noted the victim's age, the delay in filing the FIR, and the absence of any material indicating tampering or corroboration of the allegations, and therefore concluded that bail could be granted. The court set aside the Special Judge’s order, granted bail with stringent conditions, and ordered the appeal to be allowed.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the appellant under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in view of the nature of the allegations and the evidentiary record.
Whether the Special Judge’s order dated 24 March 2026 should be set aside.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 209, 251, 313, 84
Indian Penal Code — s. 229, 269
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14A(2)

Subjects

bail
SC/ST Act
rape allegation
delay in FIR
evidence insufficiency
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4519 of 2026

Imran
.....Appellant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashvni Mishra, Gaurav Tiwari, Idrak
Ahmad, Nimsha Khursheed
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

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

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri
Ashvni Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned
A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

3. Notice was issued to the opposite party no. 2 vide order dated 5.5.2026.
Office vide its report dated 17.09.2026 has reported that notice has been
personally served on the opposite party no. 2 as per the report of C.J.M.,
Aligarh, which is dated 24.07.2026 which is placed on record as Flag-A.
The said report of C.J.M. concerned encloses with it the report of
concerned police station which states that notice has been served upon the
opposite party no.2 personally. Further office vide its report dated
17.09.2026 has placed on record an Affidavit of Compliance No. 2 of
2026 of the State dated 19.06.2026, a perusal of which goes to show that
in para no. 3 it is stated that notice has been served personally on the
complainant herself and she has put her signature to the said effect. The
same is annexed as Annexure no. 1 to the said affidavit. Despite service
of notice, neither the opposite party no. 2 is present before the Court nor
there is any representation on her behalf even in the revised list. The
Court thus proceeds to hear the matter.

4. This criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant- Imran, with the
prayer to set-aside the impugned order dated 24.3.2026 passed by Special
Judge (SC/ST Act), Aligarh, in Bail Application No. 1058 of 2026, Imran
vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 34 of 2026, under
Sections 64(1), 123, 316(2), 351(3), 352 BNS and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST
Act, Police Station Javan, District- Aligarh, with a further prayer to
release the appellant on bail in the aforesaid case.

5. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 22.01.2026 by the victim/opposite
CRLA No. 4519 of 2026
2

party no. 2 against the appellant alleging therein that the appellant is a
resident of her village and sells saree. On 22.06.2025 about 7 months ago
he finding her alone in the house made her to smell some substance, after
which he raped her. When she regained her consciousness she found
herself nude, after which Imran told her that he has clicked a video of the
act and if she makes a complaint, he would murder her family. He used to
blackmail her and established physical relationship with her. In the
meantime, he took money and jewellery from her. She did not tell about it
to any one and then went to her maternal house. Imran abused her using
caste relates words. A report be lodged and action be taken.

6. 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, married woman aged about 40 years. It is submitted that the
present F.I.R. has been lodged after an unexplained delay of 7 months. It
is submitted that during investigation no such alleged video or
photographs has been recovered from the possession of the appellant. It is
submitted while placing para-19 of the affidavit, that the police did not
find any jewellery, video or any objectionable material from the appellant
and the appellant has not misbehaved with the victim. The appellant has
no criminal history as stated in para 28 of the appeal and is in jail since
23.1.2026.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the appeal and prayer
for bail.

8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the
records, it is evident that the victim is a major, married woman aged about
40 years. The present F.I.R. has been lodged after an unexplained delay of
7 months. During investigation no such alleged video or photographs has
been recovered from the possession of the appellant. The appellant has no
criminal history.

9. 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.

10. Let the appellant- Imran, 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
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
CRLA No. 4519 of 2026
3

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.

11. 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.

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

13. The impugned order dated 24.3.2026 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST
Act), Aligarh is hereby set aside.

14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(Samit Gopal,J.)
September 18, 2026
Naresh

Digitally signed by :-
NARESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…