Allahabad High Court

PRAVESH KUMAR ALIAS GOLUversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Pravesh Kumar alias Golu in a case under Sections 69 and 351(3) of the B.N.S., alleging a sexual offence. The applicant contended that the relationship with the informant was consensual and that the FIR was lodged belatedly, arguing that the conduct did not fall within Section 69 or the 'misconception of fact' provision of Section 28. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s claim of lack of deceit and absence of corroborative evidence. The Court found that the alleged act could not be said to involve deception, noted the applicant’s clean criminal record and three‑month pre‑trial detention, and saw no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions of appearance, non‑tampering, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the alleged sexual act constitutes an offence under Section 69 of the B.N.S. given the consensual nature of the relationship.
Whether the conduct falls within the 'misconception of fact' exception under Section 28 of the B.N.S.
Whether the applicant is eligible for bail considering the length of pre‑trial detention, lack of criminal antecedents, and absence of risk to the trial process.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 28, 351(3), 69

Subjects

bail
consensual sexual relationship
Section 69 B.N.S.
Section 28 B.N.S.
false implication
no criminal antecedent
pre‑trial detention

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22617 of 2026

Pravesh Kumar Alias Golu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pawan Kumar Shukla, Rajesh Kumar
Gautam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dhirendra Kumar Verma, G.A., Srawan
Kumar Swarnkar

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Srawan Kumar Swarnkar,
learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State-opposite
party. Perused the material available on record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge
the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 128 of 2026, under Sections 69,
351(3) B.N.S., Police Station- Gambhirpur, District- Azamgarh, during
the pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The first information report has
been lodged belatedly. The applicant and the informant/ victim were in
consensual relationship for considerable period of time. The consensual
sexual relationship which if continued between the parties for
considerable period of time could not be said to have continued under the
'misconception of fact' under Section 28 of the B.N.S. and could not be
said to be 'sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means' under
Section 69 of B.N.S. The applicant never made any promise to marry the
victim. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the
applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 26.05.2026
having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not
misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA have opposed the
prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid
submissions from the record.
BAIL No. 22617 of 2026
2

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the consensual sexual relationship which if
continued between the parties for considerable period of time could not be
said to have continued under the 'misconception of fact' under Section 28
of B.N.S. and could not be said to be 'sexual intercourse by employing
deceitful means' under Section 69 of B.N.S. Moreover, the applicant has
no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than three
months and after submission of charge sheet there is no hope of early
conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been
brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail,
would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the
witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion
that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant- Pravesh Kumar alias Golu, involved in the
aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and
two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Vivek Varma, J.)
September 8, 2026
Abhishek

Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…