Allahabad High Court
DHEERAJ SAHANIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant had established a prima facie case for bail and therefore granted bail subject to conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Dheeraj Sahani, who was charged under Sections 69, 93, 352 and 115(2) of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly promising marriage to a woman in exchange for the disposal of a newborn girl and then refusing to marry her. The prosecution alleged a two‑year relationship, impregnation, birth of a baby girl and the victim's act of throwing the child into water, while the defence claimed the relationship was consensual, the victim herself committed the disposal, and there was no evidence linking the applicant to the offence. The counsel highlighted a two‑year delay in filing the FIR and the absence of any incriminating material against the applicant. The State opposed bail, but the court, after evaluating the lack of clinching evidence and the fact that the victim is a major, found that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Consequently, the court ordered the release of the applicant on personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions, without prejudice to the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused pending trial for offences under Sections 69, 93, 352 and 115(2) of the IPC.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the absence of substantive evidence justify denial of bail.
- Whether the nature of the alleged offence involving a major victim and alleged infanticide impacts the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 352, 69, 93
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 69
- Section 93
- Section 352
- Section 115
- infanticide
- consensual relationship
- delay in FIR
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40575 of 2025
Dheeraj Sahani
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dharmendra Kumar Yadav, Shweta
Nishad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sitaram Yadav
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.60 out of 205)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. list has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for
the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Sheetla Sahai Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri
Dharmendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil
Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.328 of 2025, under Sections 69,
93, 352, 115(2) BNS, Police Station Lar, District Deoria, during the
pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have established
corporeal relationship with the victim for about two years and impregnated
her. The victim is stated to have given birth to a baby-girl and the applicant
is stated to have promised to marry her, if she disposed of the said daughter
born. The victim is stated to have thrown the girl in water, but subsequently
the applicant refused to comply with the said promise of marriage.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He
has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about two
years and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is even delayed
by about 15 days from the refusal of marrying the victim. There is no
BAIL No. 40575 of 2025
2
evidence against the applicant whatsoever.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that it is a clear cut
case of consensual relationship between two major persons. The victim is a
20 years old girl. The victim herself has committed crime as she, as per her
own statement, had disposed of the baby-girl born to her. There is no
clinching evidence to suggest that the applicant misled the victim from the
beginning. There is no criminal history of the applicant and he is in jail since
19.9.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the
liberty of bail.
7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the fact that victim is major and there being no clinching
evidence to suggest that the applicant misled her from the beginning, 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.
9. Let the applicant- Dheeraj Sahani, 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.
10. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
11. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 5, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…