Allahabad High Court

NAUSHAD KHANversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 22 April 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

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

Summary

Naushad Khan applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 533 of 2025) alleging that he had entered into a false promise of marriage with the victim and subsequently refused to marry her, invoking Sections 69, 115(2), 316(2) and 352 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution contended that the applicant misled the victim, while the defence argued his innocence, lack of incriminating evidence, and that the victim voluntarily consented to a physical relationship. The State opposed bail, but the court referred to Supreme Court precedents stating that pending cases do not automatically preclude bail and that a prima‑facie case for bail was made out. Relying on judgments in Prabhakar Tewari, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar and Ansaar Mohammad, the court granted bail with a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions to not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. The bail order emphasized that any breach would lead to cancellation, without prejudice to the trial on merits.

Issues considered

Whether the accused is entitled to bail pending trial for offences under Sections 69, 115(2), 316(2) and 352 IPC.
Whether the existence of other pending criminal cases against the accused bars the grant of bail.
Whether the alleged false promise of marriage and related conduct constitute sufficient ground to deny bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 316(2), 352, 69

Subjects

bail
false promise of marriage
Indian Penal Code
Section 69
Section 115(2)
Section 316(2)
Section 352
Supreme Court precedent
prima facie case

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23689 of 2025

Naushad Khan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajeet Dixit, Gyanendra Kumar Mishra,
Jitendra Prasad Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.103 out of 259)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Ajeet Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.P. Patel,
learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on
record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.533 of 2025, under Sections 69,
115(2), 316(2), 352 BNS, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda,
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 divorcee, obviously
she is major. 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 of
one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is in jail
since 15.06.2025 and he undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not
misuse the liberty of bail.
BAIL No. 23689 of 2025
2

6. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application.

7. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another,
(2020) 11 SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases
against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his
case for bail is made out.

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 judgments of the Supreme Court passed in Pramod
Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2019 (9) SCC
608 and Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2022
SCC OnLine SC 886 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- Naushad Khan, 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.)
April 23, 2026
(Ravi Kant)

Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…