The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, has allowed a criminal appeal and granted bail to an accused, setting aside a Special Judge’s order that had rejected his bail application. Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava observed that the material on record, including the prosecutrix’s statement, indicated a “consensual relationship” and that the lower court had “failed to appreciate the material available on record.”
Case Background:
The judgment was delivered on October 29, 2025, in Criminal Appeal No. 2910 of 2025. The appellant challenged an order dated 05.07.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lucknow. The Special Judge had rejected Bail Application No. 4916/2025, keeping the appellant in custody.
The case arises from Case Crime No. 213/2025, registered at Police Station Gudamba, District Lucknow. The appellant is charged under Sections 69, 123, 74, 115(2), 351(2), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Sections 3(2) 5 and 3(2) 5A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The High Court noted that notice had been served upon the respondent No. 2 (the complainant) as per a report from the C.J.M. Lucknow dated 30.09.2025. However, as no counsel appeared on her behalf nor was a counter-affidavit filed, the court observed, “it appears that she is not interested to file any counter affidavit,” and proceeded to hear final arguments.
Arguments of the Appellant:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that his client has been “falsely implicated in the present case.” It was argued that there is “no eye-witness account mentioned in the F.I.R.”
Counsel further pointed out that while the F.I.R. implicated eight accused persons, the names of seven were deleted during the investigation, and the charge-sheet was filed only against the appellant.
A key submission was that “the prosecutrix in her statement has stated that she has made physical relationship voluntarily with the applicant, thus this was the consensual relationship.” This was supported, counsel argued, by the injury report, which found “no external or internal injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix.”
The court was informed that the appellant has been in jail since 16.06.2025 and has a criminal history of two cases. Counsel gave an undertaking that the appellant would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the trial.
Arguments of the State (Respondent):
The learned A.G.A. (Additional Government Advocate) “vehemently opposed the prayer” for bail. It was submitted that the appellant is the “main culprit and committed sexual assault on the pretext of false promise of marriage.”
The A.G.A. also highlighted the appellant’s criminal history of two cases and alleged his “active participation… in the crime.”
However, the High Court’s order records that the learned A.G.A. “has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant.”
Court’s Analysis and Decision:
After considering the “facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record,” as well as the submissions from both sides, the High Court made several observations.
Justice Srivastava stated, “it transpires that it is a consensual relationship, no external or internal injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix and as per medical report, hymen was found torn and healed”.
The court also considered the fact that the “appellant is in jail since 16.06.2025 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case.”
Based on these factors, and “without expressing any opinion on merit,” the High Court found that “the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record.” The court concluded, “The order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.”
Allowing the appeal, the court ordered: “Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 05.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lucknow… is hereby set aside.”
The appellant was ordered to be “released on bail” upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount. The bail is subject to eight conditions, including that the appellant shall cooperate with the trial, not tamper with evidence, and not “pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).”
The court clarified that “observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order.”
