Kiran Raj

On January 2, 2025, the Allahabad High Court, Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh, dismissed the bail application of Salman, an accused charged under serious sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The charges stemmed from allegations of grave misconduct, including physical abuse, coercion, and sexual exploitation. The Court, after a detailed examnation of the case, concluded that the gravity of the allegations and the nature of the offense warranted the rejection of bail at this stage.

The case originated from an FIR lodged on June 17, 2024, by the complainant, who is the mother of the victim. The FIR recounted a series of troubling events that followed the marriage of the victim to the accused in February 2024. According to the complainant, the accused coerced and exploited the victim in various ways, subjecting her to acts that caused severe emotional and physical trauma. The complainant alleged that the victim was forced into situations amounting to sexual exploitation under duress. Furthermore, on April 15, 2024, the accused, accompanied by two to three other individuals, allegedly entered the complainant's residence armed with illegal weapons and attempted to forcibly abduct the victim. The complainant stated that the accused was only deterred from succeeding in this act after an alarm was raised, resulting in the intervention of local residents.

During the proceedings, the applicant’s counsel sought to downplay the allegations, describing the case as a matrimonial dispute exaggerated into criminal charges. The counsel argued that the delay in filing the FIR cast doubt on the credibility of the allegations. Moreover, it was contended that the accused had been in custody since August 25, 2024, and that his continued detention was unwarranted. The counsel assured the Court that the applicant would not misuse his liberty if granted bail and emphasized that bail was a constitutional right, subject to reasonable conditions.

The counsel for the State and the complainant opposed the bail application strongly. They argued that the nature of the allegations went far beyond a matrimonial dispute and encompassed severe acts of criminality, including coercion, physical abuse, and sexual exploitation. They submitted that the accused’s actions inflicted irreparable harm on the victim’s dignity, leaving her deeply traumatized. The State’s counsel also pointed out the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), which substantiated the claims made in the FIR. The complainant’s counsel argued that granting bail at this stage would embolden the accused and compromise the ongoing investigation.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh examined the material on record, including the victim’s statement and the facts presented by both sides. The Court noted that the allegations detailed in the FIR and corroborated in the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement were deeply troubling and reflected a calculated attempt to exploit and harm the victim. Justice Singh remarked: “This Court is of the view that the aforesaid allegations are a serious blow to the Supreme honour of the victim and offend her self-esteem and dignity. It degrades and humiliates the victim and leaves behind a traumatic experience. A rapist not only causes physical injuries but more indelibly leaves a blot on the most cherished possession of a woman i.e., dignity, honour, and reputation.”

The Court further considered the argument of delay in filing the FIR. It concluded that the delay did not undermine the credibility of the allegations, particularly given the severity of the charges and the consistent account provided by the victim. The Court observed that the delay in such cases often stems from the victim’s hesitation and fear of societal repercussions, which should not be held against them in determining the veracity of their claims.

The Court also addressed the argument regarding the accused’s prolonged custody. Justice Singh noted that the nature of the allegations and the severity of the punishment attached to the offenses outweighed the plea for release. The judgment stated: “Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, gravity of the offense, and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.”

The Court further stated that its observations were limited to the adjudication of the bail application and would not influence the trial proceedings. The bail application was ultimately rejected.

Case Title: Salman v. State of U.P.
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36778 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh

[View/Download order]