Allahabad High Court
AZAD PATELversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Azad Patel, who was arrested in connection with a case involving alleged false promise of marriage and alleged offences under Sections 69, 351(3) and 352 of the same Act. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated, that the relationship with the victim was consensual and that he had no prior criminal record, having been in custody since 4 August 2026. The State opposed bail, arguing that the applicant had established a physical relationship on a false promise of marriage and subsequently refused to marry the victim. After reviewing the FIR, victim statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183, and noting the lack of criminal history, the court found the case suitable for bail without expressing an opinion on the merits. The court ordered the applicant’s release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions to prevent intimidation of witnesses or tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in view of the alleged offences and facts of the case.
- Whether the alleged false promise of marriage and the nature of the consensual relationship affect the applicant’s eligibility for bail.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 180, 183, 351(3), 352, 483, 69
Subjects
- bail
- Section 483
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- false promise of marriage
- witness intimidation
- sureties
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31081 of 2026
Azad Patel
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Buddh Vilas, Dewarshi Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Suraj Kumar Singh
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Dewarshi Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Suraj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Shiv Dutt
Shukla, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.
3. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer
to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 195 of 2026 under Sections 69,
351(3), 352 BNS, registered at Police Station Lalpur/Pandeypur, District
Varanasi during pendency of the trial.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case and the victim is a major lady aged
about 32 years. It is further submitted that as per the FIR, the first incident
took place in the year 2018 and at that time also, she was aged about 24
years. It is next submitted that victim has stated in her statements recorded
under sections 180 and 183 BNSS that applicant established physical
relationship with her on false promise of marriage. It is further submitted
that applicant entered into matrimonial alliance with the victim in a temple
by administering vermillion on her head, however, he refused to get their
marriage solemnized in a Court. On perusal of the statements of the victim
recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS, it appears that applicant and the
victim were in consensual relationship for the last eight years and both of
them are major. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history
and he has been languishing in jail since 04.8.2026. It is also submitted that
BAIL No. 31081 of 2026
2
the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has
also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the
Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the first
informant opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submit
that applicant established physical relationship with the victim on false
promise of marriage and now he has refused to marry her.
6. As per the FIR, applicant is said to have established physical relationship
with the victim on false promise of marriage and the first incident is said to
have taken place in the year 2018. On perusal of the statements of the victim
recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS, it appears that applicant and the
victim were in consensual relationship for the last eight years and both of
them are major. The victim is major aged about 32 years and she has refused
to undergo medico-legal examination. It is further submitted that applicant
has no criminal history and he has been languishing in jail since 04.8.2026.
7. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected
from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find
it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED.
8. Let the applicant Azad Patel involved in the aforesaid case crime be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with 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 not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)
recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek
any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are
present in the trial court.
BAIL No. 31081 of 2026
3
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of
determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free
to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led
unaffected by anything said in this order.
September 18, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…