Allahabad High Court
SACHIN @ BHANU PRATAPversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and therefore granted bail.
Summary
The applicant, Sachin @ Bhanu Pratap, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No.130 of 2026) alleging that he had entered a consensual relationship with a 24‑year‑old woman under a false promise of marriage and later refused to marry her. The prosecution alleged deception, while the defence argued that the relationship was consensual, the victim was an adult, and there was no evidence of misrepresentation. The State opposed bail, but the court noted the absence of clinching evidence and the fact that the alleged victim was a major. Relying on Section 69 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court found that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Consequently, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 69 of the Code of Criminal Procedure despite allegations of a false promise of marriage and alleged consensual relationship
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 69
Subjects
- bail
- Section 69 CrPC
- false promise of marriage
- consensual relationship
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15090 of 2026
Sachin @ Bhanu Pratap
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pramod K. Gupta, Shailendra Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.18 out of 205)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Pramod K. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil
Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.130 of 2026, under Section 69
BNS, Police Station Dibiyapur, District Auraiya, during the pendency of
trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have established
corporeal relationship with the victim on the false promise of marriage and
had later on refused to comply with the said promise.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He
has nothing to do with the said offence. The victim is a consenting party.
The only allegation against the applicant is that he established corporeal
relationship with her on the false promise of marriage, and subsequently
refused to comply with the said promise rather the applicant is stated to have
gone to the extent of marrying elsewhere in a Chief Minister Marriage
Ceremony.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that it is a clear cut
case of consensual relationship between two major persons. The victim is 24
BAIL No. 15090 of 2026
2
years old as per her own statement. There is no clinching evidence to suggest
that the applicant misled the victim from the beginning. The informant has
converted a failed consensual physical relationship into a criminal case. The
criminal history assigned to the applicant has been explained. He is in jail
since 1.4.2026. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the
liberty of bail.
7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the fact that victim is major and there being no clinching
evidence to suggest that the applicant misled her from the beginning, and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the
Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail
application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant- Sachin @ Bhanu Pratap, be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court
concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he
shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear
before the trial court as required.
10. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 5, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…