Bail Granted Despite Rape Allegations | Material Contradictions in Victim Statements : Allahabad HC

In a significant bail order, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to an accused in a rape case, highlighting material contradictions in the victim's statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The Court emphasized the constitutional mandate of Article 21, ensuring the right to a fair trial without undue incarceration during prolonged trials.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The applicant, Patiraj, was accused in Case Crime No. 81 of 2025 under Sections 64 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), registered at P.S. Kapsethi, District Varanasi. The First Information Report (FIR) alleged that the applicant and co-accused Funai committed rape upon the victim on 20.06.2025. The FIR was lodged two days later, on 22.06.2025.

Key Facts

• The victim named both the applicant (Patiraj) and co-accused (Funai) in the FIR, alleging rape by both.
• In her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS, the victim reiterated the allegations against the applicant.
• However, in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS before the Judicial Magistrate, the victim resiled from her earlier version, stating that only co-accused Funai committed rape upon her, with no specific allegation against the applicant.
• The applicant has been in jail since 26.06.2025 and has no prior criminal history.
• The chargesheet has already been filed in the case.

Procedural History

• 20.06.2025: Alleged incident of rape.
• 22.06.2025: FIR lodged under Sections 64 and 61(2) BNS.
• 26.06.2025: Applicant arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
• Date not specified: Chargesheet filed.
• Date not specified: Bail application (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20622 of 2026) filed before the Allahabad High Court.
• 23.06.2026: High Court passes the present order granting bail.

Relief Sought

The applicant sought enlargement on bail during the pendency of the trial, arguing that:

• He had not committed the alleged offence.
• There were material contradictions in the victim’s statements.
• Prolonged trial would violate his right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether bail should be granted to the accused-applicant in a rape case where the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS contained material contradictions, and the trial was likely to take a substantial amount of time to conclude.

Arguments Presented

For the Applicant

• The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, as the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS did not support the allegations made in the FIR or her statement under Section 180 BNSS.
• It was argued that the applicant had no criminal history and had been in jail since 26.06.2025, with no likelihood of fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence.
• Reliance was placed on the mandate of Article 21, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial and protection from undue incarceration.
• Reference was made to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2024), Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021), and Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022) to emphasize that bail should not be denied merely on the gravity of the offence.

For the Respondent

• The State opposed the bail application, arguing that the innocence of the applicant could not be adjudged at the pre-trial stage.
• It was contended that if released on bail, the applicant might indulge in similar activities or misuse the liberty of bail.

The Court's Analysis

The Court observed that while the applicant was named in the FIR and allegations of rape were levelled against him, there existed a material contradiction between the victim’s statements. Specifically:

"Although the accused-applicant Patiraj is specifically named in the FIR and allegations of rape have been levelled against him therein, which were also reiterated by the victim in her statement under Section 180 BNSS, however, the victim, in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, resiled from her earlier version and stated that co-accused Funai had committed rape upon her."

The Court noted that the chargesheet had already been filed, reducing the likelihood of the applicant intimidating or pressurizing prosecution witnesses. Given the uncertainty regarding the conclusion of the trial and the larger mandate of Article 21, the Court invoked the principles laid down in Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, and Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, which emphasize that prolonged pre-trial detention violates the right to life and personal liberty.

The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but held that the applicant’s continued incarceration during a potentially lengthy trial would be unjust. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to stringent conditions to ensure the applicant’s compliance with the trial process.

The Verdict

The Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application of the accused-applicant, Patiraj. The Court directed his release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court. The following conditions were imposed:

1. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten witnesses.
2. The applicant shall file an undertaking that he will not seek adjournments on dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present.
3. The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed.
4. The applicant shall personally appear before the trial court for:
   • Opening of the case,
   • Framing of charge, and
   • Recording of his statement to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.
5. In case of misuse of bail liberty, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him.

The Court further directed that the identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the trial court before accepting the bonds. Any breach of the above conditions would be grounds for cancellation of bail.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Material Contradictions in Victim Statements Can Be Grounds for Bail

• Courts may consider granting bail where there are material contradictions in the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, especially if the trial is likely to be prolonged.
• Practitioners should highlight such contradictions to argue for bail, emphasizing the unreliability of the prosecution’s case at the pre-trial stage.

Right to Fair Trial Under Article 21 Outweighs Gravity of Offence

• The judgment reinforces that prolonged pre-trial detention violates Article 21, even in serious offences like rape.
• Defence counsel can rely on this precedent to argue that bail should not be denied solely on the gravity of the offence, particularly when the trial is delayed.
• Courts are likely to impose stringent conditions to ensure the accused’s compliance with the trial process, as seen in this case.

Chargesheet Filing Reduces Risk of Witness Tampering

• Once the chargesheet is filed, the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses diminishes.
• This factor can be used to argue for bail, as the Court in this case noted that there was no reasonable possibility of witness intimidation post-chargesheet.

Bail Conditions Must Be Strictly Enforced

• Courts are increasingly imposing detailed bail conditions to ensure the accused’s presence during trial.
• Practitioners must advise clients to strictly comply with these conditions, as any breach can lead to cancellation of bail.
• Conditions such as filing undertakings against adjournments and personal appearance for key trial stages are becoming standard in bail orders.