Allahabad High Court
SURAJ VERMAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
Suraj Verma applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 201 of 2026) involving alleged offences under Sections 69, 352 and 351(2) of the BNS, arising from a failed consensual relationship with a 22‑year‑old woman. The prosecution alleged that the applicant had misled or deceived the victim, while the defence argued there was no evidence of coercion, false promise, forced termination or abortion. The court examined the material on record and found no clinching evidence that the applicant had induced the victim by deception. It noted that the victim is a major and the allegations appear to be colored by personal dispute rather than a clear criminal act. On a prima facie basis, the court concluded that the applicant satisfied the criteria for bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial in a case under Sections 69, 352 and 351(2) of the BNS.
- Whether the evidence on record establishes a prima facie case of deception, forced termination or other serious offence justifying denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 351(2), 352, 69
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Sections 69, 352, 351(2) BNS
- consensual relationship
- evidence tampering
- witness intimidation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33255 of 2026
Suraj Verma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravindra Prakash Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned
counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Jagdish Prasad Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ravindra
Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhishek
Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 201 of 2026, under Sections 69,
352, 351(2) of BNS, Police Station - Kaptanganj, District - Basti, during
the pendency of trial.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the
victim is about 22 years of age and is therefore major. Prima facie, there is
no clinching or conclusive evidence on record to suggest that the applicant
misled the victim from the inception or induced her under any false promise
or deception. The material available indicates that what essentially appears
to be a failed consensual relationship has subsequently been given the color
of a criminal prosecution against the applicant. Furthermore, there is no
evidence on record to indicate any forced termination or induction of
abortion of the victim.
5. 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.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
6. Let the applicant- Suraj Verma, be released on bail on furnishing a
BAIL No. 33255 of 2026
2
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.
7. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
September 18, 2026
Siddhant
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…