State of U.P v. Party

Brief facts of the case:-

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 2.10.2024 against the applicant and four others under sections 376 D, 323, 506 IPC and according to the FIR, husband of the informant was gardener and labour in Glocal University but in the month of November, 2021 her husband fell ill and as informant was not having money for his treatment, therefore, she visited Glocal University and made demand of money from co-accused Wajid and he gave her employment in the University on monthly remuneration of Rs. 8,000/- but on one day in the evening at about 6:00 pm co-accused Wajid committed rape upon her and threatened her.

4. It is further mentioned in the FIR that applicant and others also used to visit his office and after about a week applicant also committed rape upon informant in the office and after ten days co-accused Javed also committed rape upon her.

5. It is further mentioned in the FIR that in the last week of November, 2021 2 BAIL No. 20220 of 2025 at about 5 pm in the evening, co-accused Alishan came alongwith co- accused Afzal in the office and they also committed rape upon the victim i.e. informant and next day informant went back to her home with her husband.

6. As per the FIR considering the political influence of the applicant and other accused informant earlier could not make complaint to anyone and when she came to know that some other victims have lodged FIRs against them then she lodged FIR of the present case. Submissions advanced on behalf of applicant:-

7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant submits, on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter after three years.

8. He further submits, as per prosecutrix i.e. informant applicant committed rape upon her in November, 2021 but she lodged the FIR on 02.10.2024 and this fact clearly suggests that FIR is nothing but bundle of false facts.

9. He further submits, however, informant tried to explain the delay in lodging the FIR by stating that as applicant was having political influence and therefore, she earlier could not lodge the FIR against him but on this ground, it cannot be said that she explained the delay of 3 years in lodging the FIR of the present case.

10. He further submits, admittedly prosecutrix i.e. informant is married and major lady. He further submits, story narrated by her in the FIR and in her both the statements recorded during investigation does not appear to be convincing and no prudent man can believe on such hypothetical version.

11. He further submits, as applicant is brother of Iqbal, who is Member of Parliament, therefore, due to political enmity, he has been roped in the present matter.

12. He further submits, if applicant and other accused would have committed rape upon the informant then she would not have silently went home and she would have definitely disclosed this fact to someone.

13. He further submits, three years silence of prosecutrix i.e. informant casts serious doubt upon the story narrated by her.

14. He further submits, however, apart from the present case, applicant is 3 BAIL No. 20220 of 2025 having criminal history of as many as 21 cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and it reflects, out of 21 cases, in eight cases proceedings of the case have been quashed and in number of cases proceedings of the case have been stayed by this Court and in number of cases applicant is on bail/anticipatory bail. He further submits, in one case relates to offence under Section 376 IPC applicant has been convicted but his appeal against conviction order is pending before this Court and applicant is on bail in that case.

15. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits from the entire criminal antecedents of the applicant it is apparent that he has been falsely made accused in all the cases like present one and on the basis of such criminal antecedents of the applicant, it is not proper to withheld his bail application considering Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

16. He further submits, along with applicant co-accused Javed, Wajid, Alishan and Afzal have also been made accused with similar allegation of rape and with a very detailed and reasoned order they have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 8341 of 2025 and 11540 of 2025 and they were also having long criminal history. He next submits, the case of applicant is at par with them.

17. He further submits, applicant is in jail since 01.07.2022 i.e. for last more than three years. Submissions made on behalf of the State:-

18. Per contra, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is very influential person, therefore, earlier prosecutrix could not make complaint against him and other accused but when she came to know that some other victims like her lodged FIR against them then she gathered some courage and thereafter she lodged FIR of the present case and considering the political influence of the applicant, it cannot be said that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR of the present case.

19. He further submitted that even merely on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR, entire prosecution case including statements of the victim recorded during investigation cannot be disbelieved. 4 BAIL No. 20220 of 2025

20. He further submitted that it is a case of gang rape and applicant committed rape upon her along with others and being his maid under his pressure and influence poor prosecutrix earlier could neither make any complaint at that time nor she could immediately lodged FIR against him.

21. He further submitted that even applicant is hardened criminal and he frequently misused his position and however, in some cases proceedings have been quashed and final reports have been submitted and in remaining cases he is on bail but considering his criminal antecedents, there is every possibility that after release on bail, he will again commit such serious offences of rape by exploiting innocent girls. He next submits, even apart from present case applicant is also having criminal history of other cases of rape and in one rape case he has also been convicted.

22. He further submitted that from the criminal antecedents of the applicant, it is apparent that he misused the liberty of bail granted to him.

23. He further submitted that therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case including long criminal antecedents of the applicant he is not entitled to be released on bail. Analysis:-

24. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

25. It is a case of gang rape and as per allegation, applicant and others committed rape upon the prosecutrix who was their maid but it reflects, there is huge delay of three years in lodging the FIR of the present case.

26. Further, however, prosecutrix tried to explain the delay by stating that applicant and other accused are highly influential person and therefore, she immediately could not lodge the FIR against them and when she came to know that some other victims have lodged FIRs against them then she gathered courage and lodged FIR of the present case but merely on the basis of above explanation, at this stage, it cannot be said that she has explained the delay of three years in lodging the FIR of the present case.

27. Further, admittedly prosecutrix i.e. informant of the case is major and married lady and however, she was maid servant but story narrated by her in the FIR as well as in her both the statements recorded during investigation, 5 BAIL No. 20220 of 2025 prima facie, does not appear to be convincing. No matter how serious the allegations are, the allegations cannot be accepted blindly without analyzing them.

28. In view of this Court, the delay of three years in lodging the FIR of the present case and the story narrated by prosecutrix, prima facie casts serious doubt on the entire prosecution case.

29. Further, however, applicant is having huge criminal history to his credit but his entire criminal antecedents have been duly explained in the instant bail application.

30. Further, however, from the criminal history of applicant it reflects, he has also been made accused in two rape cases and in one case he has also been convicted but his appeal before this Court is pending and in said case he is on bail. During the course of argument, learned counsel for applicant placed the order of bail passed in pending appeal and from its perusal is reflects, in that case also FIR was lodged after three years. Further, in other case applicant is on bail.

31. Further, from the criminal antecedents of applicant it also reflects, in number of cases either proceeding have been quashed or stayed or final report has been filed.

32. Further, while deciding the bail application of an accused the Court should consider that whether facts and circumstances of the case in which he is seeking bail as well as of the cases relate to his criminal history, prima facie, indicate towards his false implication or not.

33. In case at hand, considering political background of the applicant and manner of his implication in the present case, in view of this Court, it would be not proper to withheld his bail application merely on the ground of his criminal antecedents.

34. Further, however, while considering bail application of an accused his criminal antecedents are having its own importance but if otherwise case of bail is made out then merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, ordinarily bail application of an accused should not be dismissed.

35. The Apex Court in the case of Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763 observed as:- 6 BAIL No. 20220 of 2025 "The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him. In a given case, if the accused makes out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail." (See paragraph-10).

36. Further, applicant is in jail since 01.07.2022 i.e. for last more than three years and law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and his bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purpose.

37. Further, along with applicant co-accused Javed, Wajid, Alishan and Afzal have also been made accused with similar allegation of rape but with a very detailed and reasoned order, they have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 8341 of 2025 and 11540 of 2025 and on facts, case of applicant is at par with them.

38. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

39. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

40. Let the applicant - Mahmood be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

41. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 7 BAIL No. 20220 of 2025

42. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 11, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Brief facts of the case:-

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 2.10.2024 against the applicant and four others under sections 376 D, 323, 506 IPC and according to the FIR, husband of the informant was gardener and labour in Glocal University but in the month of November, 2021 her husband fell ill and as informant was not having money for his treatment, therefore, she visited Glocal University and made demand of money from co-accused Wajid and he gave her employment in the University on monthly remuneration of Rs. 8,000/- but on one day in the evening at about 6:00 pm co-accused Wajid committed rape upon her and threatened her.

4. It is further mentioned in the FIR that applicant and others also used to visit his office and after about a week applicant also committed rape upon informant in the office and after ten days co-accused Javed also committed rape upon her.

5. It is further mentioned in the FIR that in the last week of November, 2021 2 BAIL No. 20220 of 2025 at about 5 pm in the evening, co-accused Alishan came alongwith co- accused Afzal in the office and they also committed rape upon the victim i.e. informant and next day informant went back to her home with her husband.

6. As per the FIR considering the political influence of the applicant and other accused informant earlier could not make complaint to anyone and when she came to know that some other victims have lodged FIRs against them then she lodged FIR of the present case. Submissions advanced on behalf of applicant:-

7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant submits, on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter after three years.

8. He further submits, as per prosecutrix i.e. informant applicant committed rape upon her in November, 2021 but she lodged the FIR on 02.10.2024 and this fact clearly suggests that FIR is nothing but bundle of false facts.

9. He further submits, however, informant tried to explain the delay in lodging the FIR by stating that as applicant was having political influence and therefore, she earlier could not lodge the FIR against him but on this ground, it cannot be said that she explained the delay of 3 years in lodging the FIR of the present case.

10. He further submits, admittedly prosecutrix i.e. informant is married and major lady. He further submits, story narrated by her in the FIR and in her both the statements recorded during investigation does not appear to be convincing and no prudent man can believe on such hypothetical version.

11. He further submits, as applicant is brother of Iqbal, who is Member of Parliament, therefore, due to political enmity, he has been roped in the present matter.

12. He further submits, if applicant and other accused would have committed rape upon the informant then she would not have silently went home and she would have definitely disclosed this fact to someone.

13. He further submits, three years silence of prosecutrix i.e. informant casts serious doubt upon the story narrated by her.

14. He further submits, however, apart from the present case, applicant is 3 BAIL No. 20220 of 2025 having criminal history of as many as 21 cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and it reflects, out of 21 cases, in eight cases proceedings of the case have been quashed and in number of cases proceedings of the case have been stayed by this Court and in number of cases applicant is on bail/anticipatory bail. He further submits, in one case relates to offence under Section 376 IPC applicant has been convicted but his appeal against conviction order is pending before this Court and applicant is on bail in that case.

15. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits from the entire criminal antecedents of the applicant it is apparent that he has been falsely made accused in all the cases like present one and on the basis of such criminal antecedents of the applicant, it is not proper to withheld his bail application considering Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

16. He further submits, along with applicant co-accused Javed, Wajid, Alishan and Afzal have also been made accused with similar allegation of rape and with a very detailed and reasoned order they have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 8341 of 2025 and 11540 of 2025 and they were also having long criminal history. He next submits, the case of applicant is at par with them.

17. He further submits, applicant is in jail since 01.07.2022 i.e. for last more than three years. Submissions made on behalf of the State:-

18. Per contra, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is very influential person, therefore, earlier prosecutrix could not make complaint against him and other accused but when she came to know that some other victims like her lodged FIR against them then she gathered some courage and thereafter she lodged FIR of the present case and considering the political influence of the applicant, it cannot be said that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR of the present case.

19. He further submitted that even merely on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR, entire prosecution case including statements of the victim recorded during investigation cannot be disbelieved. 4 BAIL No. 20220 of 2025

20. He further submitted that it is a case of gang rape and applicant committed rape upon her along with others and being his maid under his pressure and influence poor prosecutrix earlier could neither make any complaint at that time nor she could immediately lodged FIR against him.

21. He further submitted that even applicant is hardened criminal and he frequently misused his position and however, in some cases proceedings have been quashed and final reports have been submitted and in remaining cases he is on bail but considering his criminal antecedents, there is every possibility that after release on bail, he will again commit such serious offences of rape by exploiting innocent girls. He next submits, even apart from present case applicant is also having criminal history of other cases of rape and in one rape case he has also been convicted.

22. He further submitted that from the criminal antecedents of the applicant, it is apparent that he misused the liberty of bail granted to him.

23. He further submitted that therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case including long criminal antecedents of the applicant he is not entitled to be released on bail. Analysis:-

24. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

25. It is a case of gang rape and as per allegation, applicant and others committed rape upon the prosecutrix who was their maid but it reflects, there is huge delay of three years in lodging the FIR of the present case.

26. Further, however, prosecutrix tried to explain the delay by stating that applicant and other accused are highly influential person and therefore, she immediately could not lodge the FIR against them and when she came to know that some other victims have lodged FIRs against them then she gathered courage and lodged FIR of the present case but merely on the basis of above explanation, at this stage, it cannot be said that she has explained the delay of three years in lodging the FIR of the present case.

27. Further, admittedly prosecutrix i.e. informant of the case is major and married lady and however, she was maid servant but story narrated by her in the FIR as well as in her both the statements recorded during investigation, 5 BAIL No. 20220 of 2025 prima facie, does not appear to be convincing. No matter how serious the allegations are, the allegations cannot be accepted blindly without analyzing them.

28. In view of this Court, the delay of three years in lodging the FIR of the present case and the story narrated by prosecutrix, prima facie casts serious doubt on the entire prosecution case.

29. Further, however, applicant is having huge criminal history to his credit but his entire criminal antecedents have been duly explained in the instant bail application.

30. Further, however, from the criminal history of applicant it reflects, he has also been made accused in two rape cases and in one case he has also been convicted but his appeal before this Court is pending and in said case he is on bail. During the course of argument, learned counsel for applicant placed the order of bail passed in pending appeal and from its perusal is reflects, in that case also FIR was lodged after three years. Further, in other case applicant is on bail.

31. Further, from the criminal antecedents of applicant it also reflects, in number of cases either proceeding have been quashed or stayed or final report has been filed.

32. Further, while deciding the bail application of an accused the Court should consider that whether facts and circumstances of the case in which he is seeking bail as well as of the cases relate to his criminal history, prima facie, indicate towards his false implication or not.

33. In case at hand, considering political background of the applicant and manner of his implication in the present case, in view of this Court, it would be not proper to withheld his bail application merely on the ground of his criminal antecedents.

34. Further, however, while considering bail application of an accused his criminal antecedents are having its own importance but if otherwise case of bail is made out then merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, ordinarily bail application of an accused should not be dismissed.

35. The Apex Court in the case of Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763 observed as:- 6 BAIL No. 20220 of 2025 "The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him. In a given case, if the accused makes out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail." (See paragraph-10).

36. Further, applicant is in jail since 01.07.2022 i.e. for last more than three years and law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and his bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purpose.

37. Further, along with applicant co-accused Javed, Wajid, Alishan and Afzal have also been made accused with similar allegation of rape but with a very detailed and reasoned order, they have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 8341 of 2025 and 11540 of 2025 and on facts, case of applicant is at par with them.

38. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

39. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

40. Let the applicant - Mahmood be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

41. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 7 BAIL No. 20220 of 2025

42. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 11, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad