Allahabad High Court

SURJEETversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 17 September 2026
Bench: YOGESH DUBEY JOINT REGISTRAR JUDICIAL

Holding

The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

Surjeet applied for bail in a case involving alleged offences under the BNS Act, the POCSO Act and the D.P. Act, where the victim, a minor aged 17 years 11 months, alleged that the applicant had established a physical relationship on a false promise of marriage. The applicant contended that the relationship was consensual, the marriage had been fixed but later aborted due to a dowry dispute, and that no sexual assault occurred, as the victim refused a medico‑legal examination. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the victim's minority and the seriousness of the charges. The Court, noting the applicant's lack of prior criminal history, the principle of presumption of innocence, overcrowded jails, and recent Supreme Court precedents (Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI and Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P.), granted bail without commenting on the merits. Bail was conditioned on a personal bond, sureties, and compliance with standard bail conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving alleged offences under the BNS Act, POCSO Act and D.P. Act where the victim is a minor.
Whether the alleged consensual relationship and the claim of false promise of marriage affect the bail eligibility.
Whether the applicant's lack of criminal history and the circumstances of jail overcrowding justify bail.

Legislation cited

BNS — s. 115(2), 351(3), 352, 69
D.P. Act — s. 3, 4
POCSO Act — s. 5(L), 6

Subjects

bail
minor victim
POCSO
false promise of marriage
dowry dispute
criminal procedure
overcrowded prisons
bail jurisprudence

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31074 of 2026

Surjeet
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jalaj Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. Heard Sri Jalaj Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri B.P. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 398 of 2026, under
Sections 69, 115(2), 352, 351(3) of BNS and Section 5(L)/6 of
POCSO Act and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Bhojipura,
District Bareilly, during the pendency of the trial.

3. At the very outset, learned AGA submits that notice has been
served on the first informant.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and on
perusal of the contents of the FIR as well as the statement of the
victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, it appears that
the applicant and the victim were in consensual relationship and
their marriage has been fixed and engagement ceremony has
been performed, however, due to some dispute regarding demand
of dowry, their marriage could not be performed and the marriage
of the applicant has been fixed with some other girl. It is further
submitted that the age of the victim has been found to be 17 years
and 11 months as per her certificate of High School and the victim
BAIL No. 31074 of 2026
2

has refused to undergo medico-legal examination and she has
stated before the doctor that no sexual assault was committed on
her and only sexual harassment was done to her. It is also
submitted that the applicant has been languishing in jail since
7.7.2026 and he is having no criminal history. It is lastly submitted
that in case the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail, however, it is submitted that the the victim is a minor girl
aged about 17 years and 11 months as per her certificate of High
School and the victim in her statement recorded under Section
183 BNSS has stated that the applicant established physical
relationship on the false promise of marriage.

6. As per the allegation in the FIR, the applicant is said to have
established physical relationship on the false promise of marriage,
however, it is submitted that on perusal of the contents of the FIR
as well as the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180
and 183 BNSS, it appears that the applicant and the victim were in
consensual relationship and their marriage has been fixed and due
to some dispute regarding demand of dowry, their marriage could
not be performed and the marriage of the applicant has been fixed
with some other girl. The age of the victim has been found to be 17
years and 11 months as per her certificate of High School and the
victim has refused to undergo medico-legal examination and she
has stated before the doctor that no sexual assault was committed
on her and only sexual harassment was done to her. The
applicant has been languishing in jail since 7.7.2026 and he is
having no criminal history.

7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view
the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and
taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of
criminal cases before the trial courts as well as considering the
mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil
BAIL No. 31074 of 2026
3

Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case
of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All
6765 regarding grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on
the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is
entitled to be enlarged on bail.

8. Accordingly, the present application is ALLOWED.

9. Let the applicant- Surjeet involved in the aforementioned crime
be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court
concerned, with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts
to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely
without seeking any adjournment.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or
commission of any crime after being released on bail.

(iv) The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of
the bond executed by him.

10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a
ground for cancellation of bail.

11. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and
sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are
accepted. Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the
applicant as well as sureties should be verified by the court
concerned.

12. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release
order to the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System
BAIL No. 31074 of 2026
4

(BOMS) to ensure early release of the applicant.

13. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant
through concerned Jail Superintendent via e-mail or e-prison
portal within 24 hours in compliance of the order of the Apex Court
in the case of Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu
Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported
in (2024) 10 SCC 685.

September 18, 2026
Abhishek

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…