Allahabad High Court
AKASH KANNAUJIYAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant’s lack of prior record, the FIR’s delay, and the victim’s refusal to undergo medico‑legal examination render the case fit for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for Akash Kannaujiya, who was charged under Sections 69, 127(2), 351(2) and 352 of the same Act for allegedly establishing a physical relationship with a woman on a false promise of marriage. The applicant claimed false implication, highlighted that the victim was already married, the FIR was lodged 13 days after the alleged incident, and the victim refused a medico‑legal examination. The State opposed bail, relying on the victim’s statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS. The Court, noting the applicant’s clean criminal record, the delay in filing the FIR, and the victim’s refusal to undergo examination, found the case suitable for bail without expressing an opinion on the merits. Accordingly, bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and several conditions, with a warning that breach would lead to cancellation.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case involving alleged false promise of marriage and related offences.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the victim’s refusal to undergo medico‑legal examination justify granting bail.
- Whether the applicant’s lack of prior criminal record warrants bail despite the seriousness of the charges.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 127(2), 180, 183, 351(2), 352, 483, 69
Subjects
- bail
- false promise of marriage
- delay in FIR
- medico‑legal examination refusal
- personal bond
- sureties
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31100 of 2026
Akash Kannaujiya
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Kumar Gupta, Syed Irfan Ali
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.P. Maurya,
learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.
2. 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. 142 of 2026 under Sections 69, 127(2), 351(2), 352 BNS,
registered at Police Station Sinduriyan, District Maharajganj during pendency of the
trial.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case and the victim is already married and her Nikahnama is
annexed with the memo of application. It is further submitted that FIR is lodged after
delay of 13 days and the victim has refused to undergo medico-legal examination. It is
further submitted that as per the FIR, applicant is said to have established physical
relationship with the victim on false promise of marriage and she was taken away by
the applicant on 18.6.2026 and, thereafter, she was dropped on 24.6.2026 and the FIR
has been lodged on 01.7.2026. It is next submitted that the victim 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 03.7.2026. It is also
submitted that 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.
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
applicant and submits that the victim has stated in her statements recorded under
sections 180 and 183 BNSS that applicant established physical relationship with the
victim on false promise of marriage.
5. As per the FIR, applicant is said to have established physical relationship with the
victim on false promise of marriage. The victim is major and it is submitted by the
BAIL No. 31100 of 2026
2
applicant that she is already married. ON perusal of the statement of the victim
recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS, it appears that she was in consensual
relationship with the applicant for about five years. The victim has refused to undergo
medico-legal examination. Applicant has no criminal history and he has been
languishing in jail since 03.7.2026.
6. 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.
7. Let the applicant Akash Kannaujiya 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.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either
personally or through his counsel.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
9. 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…