Allahabad High Court
TARACHANDRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court allowed the bail application, finding that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail.
Summary
The applicant, Tarachandra, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 139 of 2026) under Sections 69 and 351(3) of the Indian Penal Code, alleging a false promise of marriage to a married adult woman. The prosecution alleged that the applicant established a corporeal relationship with the victim based on that false promise and later reneged. The applicant's counsel contended that he was innocent, that there was no conclusive evidence of deception, and that the informant had turned a consensual encounter into a criminal complaint. The State opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences. After considering the submissions and the lack of clinching evidence, the court held that a prima facie case for bail existed and ordered the applicant's release on personal bond and sureties, subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case under Sections 69 and 351(3) IPC where the alleged offence involves a false promise of marriage and alleged intimidation.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 351(3), 69
Subjects
- bail
- false promise of marriage
- IPC Section 69
- IPC Section 351(3)
- prima facie
- sureties
- criminal intimidation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29547 of 2026
Tarachandra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bachan Singh, Vimal Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.39 out of 80 T.C.)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Vimal Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Uma Shankar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material
placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.139 of 2026, under Sections 69,
351(3) BNS, Police Station Sirauli, 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. The victim is a married lady and she
is major obviously. 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. There is no
criminal history of the applicant and he is in jail since 2.7.2026. He
undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
BAIL No. 29547 of 2026
2
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the fact that victim is major and there being no clinching
evidence to suggest that the applicant misled her from the beginning, 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.
8. Let the applicant- Tarachandra, 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.
9. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 11, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…