The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to an accused charged under Section 376(2N) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, despite the serious nature of the offence. The Court emphasized the need to balance personal liberty with the gravity of the charges, while considering the applicant's prolonged incarceration and the absence of any criminal antecedents. The decision underscores the evolving jurisprudence on bail in cases involving relationships and consensual acts, particularly where the complainant's statements suggest a complex narrative.
Background & Facts
The Genesis
The applicant, Azeem Khan, was arrested in connection with Case Crime No.99 of 2026 registered at Police Station Sahaswan, District Budaun, under Sections 376(2N), 313, 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR was lodged by the victim's family, alleging that the applicant had established a relationship with the victim and had sexual relations with her without her consent, despite her being a minor at the time of the alleged offence.
Key Facts
- The applicant and the victim were in a relationship for a long time, and the victim became pregnant on three occasions, though she aborted each time.
- The applicant contended that he had intended to marry the victim, but the marriage could not be solemnized due to certain reasons.
- The medical examination report did not indicate any signs of sexual assault.
- The applicant has been in custody since 03.05.2026.
- The charge sheet was filed by the police, and the applicant has no prior criminal history.
Procedural History
- Date of FIR: Not explicitly mentioned in the judgment, but the applicant was arrested on 03.05.2026.
- Date of Arrest: 03.05.2026.
- Date of Bail Application: Filed as Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20613 of 2026.
- Date of Judgment: 21.07.2026.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant:
- The applicant argued that both he and the victim were major at the time of the alleged offence.
- The relationship was consensual, and the victim's pregnancy history suggested mutual consent.
- The applicant had no intention to harm the victim and was falsely implicated due to the failed marriage plans.
- The applicant has been in custody for over two months and has no criminal history.
For the State:
- The State opposed the bail application but did not dispute the factual assertions made by the applicant.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought bail during the trial, subject to conditions ensuring his cooperation and non-interference with the investigation or trial proceedings.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, despite the serious nature of the charges under Section 376(2N) IPC, considering the facts of the case and the applicant's prolonged incarceration.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
Learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Tarun Kumar Srivastava, argued that:
- Both the applicant and the victim were major at the time of the alleged offence.
- The relationship was consensual, and the victim's pregnancy history indicated mutual consent.
- The applicant had no criminal history and had been in custody since 03.05.2026.
- The charge sheet had been filed, and there was no need for custodial interrogation.
- The applicant was willing to cooperate in the trial proceedings and would not misuse the liberty of bail.
For the Respondent
Learned counsel for the first informant and the State, Shri Amir Khan and Shri Ramkumar Verma, opposed the bail application but did not dispute the factual assertions made by the applicant.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the applicant's contentions in light of the following principles:
- The mandate of the Supreme Court in Kapil Wadhawan v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2025 SCC Online SC 3038), which emphasizes the need to balance personal liberty with the gravity of the offence.
- The guidelines laid down by this Court in Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P. (2024 SCC Online All 6765) regarding the grant of bail.
- The overcrowded state of jails and the heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts.
The Court noted that while the offence alleged was serious, the applicant had been in custody for over two months, and there was no evidence to suggest that he would tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. The Court also considered the fact that the applicant had no criminal history and was willing to cooperate in the trial proceedings.
"Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari vs State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail."
The Verdict
The Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicant, Azeem Khan, on bail. The Court imposed the following conditions:
- The applicant shall not make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing the facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
- The applicant shall cooperate in the trial and investigation sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
- The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
- The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. The Court also directed the verification of the identity, status, and residence proof of the applicant and sureties, as well as the verification of their mobile numbers and Aadhaar Cards. The trial court was directed to send the release order to the concerned jail through the Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to ensure early release of the applicant.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Jurisprudence Evolves Beyond Strict Gravity
The judgment highlights that the gravity of the offence alone cannot be the sole ground for denying bail. Courts must consider:
- The duration of incarceration and the applicant's conduct during custody.
- The absence of any criminal history or prior record.
- The applicant's willingness to cooperate in the trial proceedings.
- The overcrowded state of jails and the need to decongest prisons.
Consensual Relationships and False Implication
- In cases involving relationships and consensual acts, courts are increasingly scrutinizing the complainant's statements and medical evidence to determine the veracity of the allegations.
- The judgment underscores the need to distinguish between genuine offences and cases where the complainant's statements may be influenced by personal or social factors.
Strict Compliance with Bail Conditions
- The Court imposed stringent conditions to ensure that the applicant does not misuse the liberty of bail.
- Practitioners must advise clients to strictly adhere to bail conditions to avoid cancellation of bail and further legal complications.
