Allahabad High Court

HARSH SRIVASTAVAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and granted bail subject to conditions.

Summary

Harsh Srivastava applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No.96 of 2026) under IPC Sections 69 and 351(2) BNS, alleged to have entered a false promise of marriage with the victim and later refused to fulfill it. The prosecution claimed deception, while the applicant’s counsel argued that the relationship was consensual, the victim was an adult, and there was no incriminating video or evidence of intimidation. The State opposed bail, asserting the seriousness of the allegations. The court examined the material, noted the absence of clinching evidence of deception and the victim’s consent, and concluded that a prima facie case for bail existed. Consequently, bail was granted on personal bond and two sureties, with conditions to not tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, and appear before the trial court.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a case under IPC Sections 69 and 351(2) BNS based on the facts presented.
Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case of deception and criminal intimidation.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 351(2), 69

Subjects

bail
IPC
Section 69
Section 351(2)
false promise of marriage
consensual relationship
criminal intimidation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15308 of 2026

Harsh Srivastava
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ambreen Masroor, Sadrul Islam Jafri,
Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.40 out of 259)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri F.I. Jafri,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State
Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.96 of 2026, under Sections 69,
351(2) BNS, Police Station Medical, District Meerut, 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 Senior 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 victim is major aged about 30 years and the applicant himself is a youth
of 21 years old. There is no recovery of any indecent video of the victim
whatsoever.

6. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant has further stated that it is a clear
cut case of consensual relationship between two major persons. There is no
clinching evidence to suggest that the applicant misled the victim from the
BAIL No. 15308 of 2026
2

beginning. The informant has converted a failed consensual physical
relationship into a criminal case. There is no criminal history of the applicant
and he is in jail since 29.3.2026. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial
and not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Learned State Law Officer 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- Harsh Srivastava, 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 6, 2026
Vikas Verma

Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…