Allahabad High Court
ANUJ TOMARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted as the applicant made out a prima facie case for bail.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered the bail application of Anuj Tomar, who is charged under IPC sections 69, 125, 308(8), 352, 351(2) and IT Act section 67 for allegedly deceiving a woman with a false promise of marriage, recording indecent acts and posting them on social media. The prosecution contended that Tomar was already married, had two children, and maliciously maligned the victim, while the defence argued that the FIR was delayed, the relationship was consensual, and the alleged conduct did not amount to an offence. The defence also submitted that Tomar’s prior criminal history was explained and should not by itself bar bail. The Court observed that bail cannot be denied solely on antecedents and, prima facie, the applicant had made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, sureties and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted despite charges under IPC and IT Act
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR affects bail eligibility
- Whether the consensual nature of the relationship negates criminal liability
- Whether prior criminal history precludes the grant of bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 125, 308(8), 351(2), 352, 69
- Information Technology Act — s. 67
Subjects
- bail
- false promise of marriage
- indecent representation
- IPC
- IT Act
- criminal antecedents
- consensual relationship
- social media
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23886 of 2025
Anuj Tomar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rakesh Pati Tiwari, S.P.S. Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Deepak Upadhyay, G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.105 out of 243)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on
record.
2. Heard Sri S.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak
Upadhyay, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned
State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.239 of 2025, under Sections 69,
125, 308(8), 352, 351(2) BNS and Section 67 I.T. Act, Police Station
Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr, 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, but
subsequently it was revealed to the victim that the applicant was already
married and had two children from his earlier marriage; as such, there was
no question of his complying with the said promise, and the applicant had
even video-recorded the said indecent act and posted the said indecent
photographs and video on social media, thus maligning her.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the FIR is delayed, and
it is delayed by about 10 days from the date the fact came to the knowledge
of the victim regarding the viral photographs and video. The said consensual
relationship continued for about 6 years. The victim and the applicant both
are named in several cases; as such, it is a clear-cut case of false implication.
There is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant misused his clout,
and it was his intention from the inception not to marry the victim. A matter
BAIL No. 23886 of 2025
2
of consensual relationship between two major persons has been converted
into a criminal case by the victim.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that it is true that the
relationship may fall within the category of moral turpitude and may be
against societal norms, but it is not an offence. The criminal history of
thirteen cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is in
jail since 04.04.2025, and he undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not
misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have
vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the
submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
8. This Court is of the view that if a case for bail is otherwise made out, an
accused cannot be kept incarcerated solely on account of his criminal
antecedents. In the instant case, the criminal history attributed to the
applicant has been properly explained.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration that a consensual relationship between two major persons has
been converted into a criminal case by the victim, 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.
10. Let the applicant- Anuj Tomar, 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.
11. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 12, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…