Allahabad High Court

DHANPALversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The applicant, Dhanpal, was arrested in connection with a case under Section 69 of the B.N.S., alleging sexual intercourse by deceit with a married woman. He contended that the relationship was consensual and that the FIR was filed belatedly, with no corroborative evidence linking him to the offence. The State opposed bail, but the court found that the informant, being a married lady, could not marry the applicant and that there was no reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay. Having been in custody for over four months without a clear prospect of a speedy trial, the court deemed the applicant eligible for bail. Accordingly, the court ordered his release on bail subject to personal bond, sureties, and conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence, pressurising witnesses, and mandating court appearances.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial for an offence under Section 69 of the B.N.S.
Whether the alleged conduct constitutes an offence under Section 69 (sexual intercourse by deceit) and Section 28 (misconception of fact) of the B.N.S.
Whether there is a risk of the applicant tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or causing delay in the trial

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 28, 69

Subjects

bail
Section 69
Section 28
sexual intercourse by deceit
false implication
married woman
trial delay
evidence tampering
witness intimidation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24805 of 2026

Dhanpal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amit Kumar Srivastava, G.A., Rakesh
Kumar Gangwar

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

1. Case called out. Counsel for the informant is not present. Earlier on
04.08.2026, the case was adjourned on account of absence of counsel for
the informant.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anupam Anand,
learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party. Perused the material
available on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge
the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 870 of 2025, under Section 69 of
the B.N.S., Police Station- Subhash Nagar, District- Bareilly, during the
pendency of the trial.

4. 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 informant/ victim was a married lady and she was
not in position to marry the applicant. It is next contended that the
applicant and the informant/ victim were in consensual relationship for
almost six years. 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 30.04.2026 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on
BAIL No. 24805 of 2026
2

bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but
could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the
record.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the informant/ victim was a married lady and
she was not in position to marry the applicant. Further, the applicant has
presently remained confined for more than four 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, Dhanpal involved in the aforesaid case be released
on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like
amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions
that:

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial
court.

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…