Kiran Raj

The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to an accused in a case registered under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, while directing the applicant to marry the victim within three months of his release. The court held that no exceptional circumstances were presented to justify the denial of bail and reiterated the principle that bail is the norm and jail is the exception.

Justice Krishan Pahal heard the bail application filed by the accused, who had been in judicial custody since September 21, 2024. The prosecution alleged that the accused had developed a relationship with the victim under the pretext of securing her admission into the Uttar Pradesh Police, took ₹9 lakh from her, sexually assaulted her, and later made an obscene video viral on social media. The accused was charged under Case Crime No. 227 of 2024 at Police Station Khandauli, West Police Commissionerate, District Agra.

Also Read: No Rigid Rule That Convict Should Undergo Half Of Sentence For Bail At Appellate Stage, Says Supreme Court

The prosecution contended that the accused had misused the victim’s trust by making false promises and coercing her into an exploitative situation. It was submitted that the allegations were serious, involving both sexual assault and financial fraud. The prosecution further argued that granting bail could result in tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

The applicant’s counsel argued that the accused was falsely implicated and that the case was based on fabricated allegations. It was submitted that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of four months, raising doubts about the veracity of the claims. The defense asserted that the accused had no prior criminal record and was willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court, including marrying the victim. It was further argued that the accused, being a 26-year-old individual, should not be denied his right to bail based on allegations that had not yet been proven in court.

The court examined the principles governing bail, citing the Supreme Court’s decisions in Niranjan Singh and another v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., which reiterated the presumption of innocence unless guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The court recorded, “A person’s right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, stating that “bail is not to be withheld as a punishment” and that the principle of “bail is a rule and jail is an exception” must be recognized. It was noted that there was no material before the court to suggest that the accused was likely to abscond or interfere with the legal process. The court further observed that “the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial,” and there was no indication that the applicant would misuse the liberty granted.

The High Court allowed the bail application, directing that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The bail was granted subject to several conditions, including the requirement that the applicant marry the victim within three months of his release. Additional conditions included a prohibition on tampering with evidence and mandatory appearance before the trial court on specified dates for the opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Also Read: Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Immediate Action on Nursing College Irregularities, Warns Officials of Liability for Granting Recognition to Institutions "Running Short of Infrastructure

The court stated that non-compliance with any of the conditions would be grounds for cancellation of bail. It further directed the trial court to verify the identity, status, and residence proof of the applicant and sureties before accepting the bail bonds. The court stated that the observations made in granting bail would not affect the trial court’s independent assessment of the case during the proceedings.

The order was issued on February 20, 2025, and the applicant was directed to abide by all conditions imposed by the court.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the applicant: Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate,   Saurabh Dwivedi, Advocate
For the opposite party: A.K. Shukla, AGA

Case Title: Naresh Meena @ Narsaram Meena v. State of U.P.
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:24641
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39747 of 2024
Bench: Justice Krishan Pahal

[Read/Download order]