Allahabad High Court

AVINASH SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The bail application is allowed.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Avinash Sharma, who was in custody for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code arising from an alleged false promise of marriage, subsequent marriage elsewhere, and threats to the victim. The prosecution alleged that the victim, a widow, was impregnated by the accused and threatened with death, while the defence highlighted a seven‑month delay in filing the FIR and argued that the victim’s consent negated the rape allegation. The State opposed bail on the grounds of the victim’s vulnerability and the seriousness of the offences. The Court examined whether the alleged illicit relationship amounted to rape and whether the delay and the nature of the offences justified denial of bail. Concluding that the case involved a consensual illicit relationship rather than a rape and that the applicant had made out a prima‑facie case for bail, the Court granted bail with conditions. The order directed the applicant to furnish a personal bond and two sureties and warned that breach of conditions would lead to cancellation of bail.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused in offences under IPC Sections 323, 504, 506 and 376(2) given the facts.
Whether the alleged illicit relationship constitutes rape under Section 376(2) IPC.
Whether the seven‑month delay in lodging the FIR is a ground to deny bail.
Whether the seriousness of the alleged threats and the victim’s status preclude bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 376(2), 504, 506

Subjects

bail
IPC
Section 323
Section 504
Section 506
Section 376(2)
rape
false promise of marriage
illicit relationship
delay in FIR
criminal intimidation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 345 of 2026

Avinash Sharma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rahul Kumar Yadav, Shiv Ram Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Vijay Pratap Singh, Anand Priya Singh,
G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.126 out of 259)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Shiv Ram Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vijay
Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh,
learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on
record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.235 of 2025, under Sections 323,
504, 506, 376(2)n IPC, Police Station Rajghat, District Gorakhpur, 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
subsequently refused to comply with the said promise. In the meantime, the
applicant is stated to have married elsewhere, while the victim became
impregnated by him and was pregnant by about 4 months at the time of
institution of the FIR. The applicant thereby threatened the victim to put her
to death by crushing her by a truck.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the FIR is delayed by at
least 7 months, and there is no explanation for the said delay. The story as
narrated by the victim indicates her consent. The only dispute was that the
applicant is stated to have married elsewhere. The victim is living in the
house of the applicant only. She is major aged about 23 years. The applicant
BAIL No. 345 of 2026
2

has no criminal history and is in jail since 29.11.2025. He undertakes to
cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have
vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim is a
widow and was impregnated by the applicant due to his lust and then
abandoned her. She has nowhere to go, and her offspring has been forced to
live a life of destitution and vagrancy; as such, the applicant is not entitled to
bail.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration that the matter seems to be of an illicit relationship between
major persons, which does not fall within the category of rape, although it
may amount to moral turpitude; and that all the acts of a person may be
immoral but they may not be an offence, 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- Avinash Sharma, 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.)
May 6, 2026
(Ravi Kant)

Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…