Allahabad High Court
MAAJversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court granted bail to the applicant, finding that he had made out a case for bail.
Summary
The applicant, Maaj, was arrested in connection with a case (Crime No. 212 of 2025) alleging that he entered into a corporeal relationship with a 30‑year‑old woman on a false promise of marriage, violating Sections 69, 89, 352 and 351(2) of the BNS. The applicant contended that the relationship was consensual, that he was falsely implicated, and that there was no evidence of a false promise or any criminal intent. The State opposed bail, arguing that the allegations, if proven, could constitute serious offences. The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents stating that a false promise of marriage does not amount to rape and that delayed, unsupported claims may be an abuse of process. After considering the material, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and ordered his release on personal bond and sureties, subject to conditions, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the underlying case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused pending trial for alleged offences under Sections 69, 89, 352 and 351(2) of the BNS arising from a purported false promise of marriage.
- Whether the alleged conduct constitutes rape or an offence under the POCSO Act.
- Whether the promise of marriage was genuine or false and whether the physical relationship was consensual, for purposes of bail determination.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 351(2), 352, 69, 89
Subjects
- bail
- false promise of marriage
- consensual relationship
- rape
- POCSO
- criminal procedure
- trial pending
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26854 of 2025
Maaj
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankit Tiwari, Manvendra Singh,
Shahzeb Aftab Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 121 out of 262)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the
learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Shahzeb Aftab Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the
material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 212 of 2025, under Sections
69, 89, 352, 351(2) of BNS, Police Station - Qilla, District - Bareilly,
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. 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. It is also stated that the victim is major aged about 30 years.
There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing
in jail since 03.05.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the
applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
BAIL No. 26854 of 2025
2
6. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application.
7. The Supreme Court 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, has
stated that entering into any kind of corporeal relationship with a person
on the false promise to marry cannot be termed as rape.
8. Recently, the Supreme Court in Kunal Chatterjee vs. State of West
Bengal & Ors. (Special Leave petition (Crl.) No. 7004 of 2025)
reiterating the aforesaid viewpoint stated that delayed allegations of
consensual physical relations, chiefly when based on a failed promise to
marry and unsupported by evidence, do not constitute rape or grounds
under POCSO if the circumstances indicate abuse of criminal process and
quashed the proceedings to prevent misuse of law.
9. This Court has avoided expressing its opinion as the case hinges on
whether the applicant's promise of marriage was genuine or false and
whether the physical relationship was consensual or not. It is for the Trial
Court to draw a conclusion which will depend on the evidence presented
before it and its interpretation as per law.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and
taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.,
2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement,
2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for
bail. The bail application is allowed.
11. Let the applicant- Maaj, 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.
12. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
BAIL No. 26854 of 2025
3
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 2, 2026
Siddhant
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…