“Victim Herself Invited Trouble And Was Also Responsible For The Same”: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Accused In Section 64 BNS Case
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Allahabad High Court Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh granted bail to an accused charged under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court directed that the applicant be released on bail with specific conditions, having considered the factual matrix of the case and the nature of allegations as disclosed in the First Information Report (FIR) and supported by the victim’s own statement. The Court observed that both the applicant and the victim were adults, and even if the allegations were taken at face value, the victim’s own conduct contributed to the incident. The order was confined solely to the issue of bail and not on the merits of the trial.
The bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was filed on behalf of the applicant seeking release in connection with Case Crime No. 226 of 2024 registered at Police Station Sector-126, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The case involved an offence under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.’
According to the FIR lodged on 23.09.2024, the incident allegedly occurred on 21.09.2024. The FIR was filed by the victim, who was a postgraduate student residing in a PG hostel. It alleged that the applicant committed rape on the pretext of providing assistance to the victim when she was intoxicated. The FIR was considered by the Court, and the relevant extract was quoted in the order.
The principal argument advanced on behalf of the applicant was based on the admitted facts revealed in the FIR itself. It was pointed out that the victim was a major, studying in an M.A. programme, and had gone with her female friends and their male companions to a bar-restaurant named “The Record Room.” There, they consumed alcohol and stayed until approximately 3:00 AM.
It was further argued that due to her intoxicated state, the victim required assistance and agreed to go to the applicant’s residence to rest. The applicant contended that he did not force the victim and that she voluntarily accompanied him. The defence strongly denied the allegation that the applicant took the victim to a relative’s flat instead of his house and committed rape.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the medical examination of the victim recorded a torn hymen but the doctor had not given any opinion regarding sexual assault. It was argued that the nature of the facts, as presented in the FIR and corroborated in the victim’s statement, reflected a consensual relationship rather than a case of forcible sexual assault.
The applicant further contended that he had no prior criminal history and had been in custody since 11.12.2024. It was argued that he was not a flight risk and posed no threat of tampering with the prosecution’s evidence or influencing witnesses. It was requested that bail be granted, subject to conditions that would ensure cooperation in the trial process.
In response, the learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the bail application, relying on the contents of the FIR. However, the State did not contest the factual aspects emphasized by the defence regarding the events preceding the alleged offence, the age and competence of the victim, and her voluntary conduct.
After hearing both parties and examining the available material, including the FIR, the medical report, and the statements on record, the Court proceeded to assess the case for bail purely on the basis of the facts presented and the stage of trial.
The Court recorded the legal maturity and decision-making capacity of the victim:
“It is not in dispute that victim and applicant both are major. Victim is student of M.A., hence she was competent enough to understand the morality and significance of her act as disclosed by her in the F.I.R.”
The Court expressed a view on the implications of the victim’s own conduct in the incident:
“This Court is of the view that even if the allegation of the victim is accepted as true, then it can also be concluded that she herself invited trouble and was also responsible for the same.”
The Court noted that the same stance was reflected in the victim’s own statement and that the medical examination did not conclusively support the allegation of rape:
“Similar stand has been taken by the victim in her statement. In her medical examination, her hymen was found torn but doctor did not give any opinion about the sexual assault.”
On the overall assessment of the case and whether the applicant should be released on bail, the Court stated:
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.”
The Court clarified that the observations made were limited only to the decision on bail and would not impact the trial proceedings:
“It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail only and shall not affect the merit of the trial.”
The Court allowed the bail application and issued the following directions:
“Let the applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:”
- “That the applicant shall cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.”
- “That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.”
- “That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.”
- “The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.”
The Court further directed:
“In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinay Saran, Senior Advocate; Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent: Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P.
Case Title: XXX v. State of U.P.
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:35383
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1971 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh
[Read/Download order]
