Allahabad High Court
ROHIT PRAJAPATIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail and therefore granted bail.
Summary
The applicant, Rohit Prajapati, was arrested in connection with a case under Section 69 alleging that he had entered into a false promise of marriage and subsequently refused to fulfil it, leading to a claim of deception by a 26‑year‑old victim. The applicant contended that the allegations were unfounded, that there was no substantive evidence of any misrepresentation, and that the informant had turned a consensual relationship into a criminal complaint. The State opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the offence, while the applicant’s counsel highlighted his clean record and willingness to cooperate with the trial. The Court, after considering the material on record and Supreme Court precedents (Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs State of Maharashtra and Ansaar Mohammad vs State of Rajasthan), found that the applicant had made out a prima‑facie case for bail. Consequently, the Court granted bail on the condition of a personal bond, two sureties, and compliance with standard bail conditions such as not tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial in a case of alleged false promise of marriage under Section 69.
- Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case sufficient to deny bail.
- Whether the conditions imposed by the Court are appropriate to ensure the applicant’s compliance with the trial process.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 69
Subjects
- bail
- false promise of marriage
- prima facie case
- sureties
- witness tampering
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Indian Penal Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41211 of 2025
Rohit Prajapati
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Srivastava, Deepak Kumar
Dubey, Raj Kumari Devi, Yadavendra
Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.172 out of 277)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Yadavendra Dwivedi and Sri Deepak Kumar Dubey, learned
counsel for the applicant, Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law
Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.310 of 2025, under Section 69
BNS, Police Station Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur, 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
had later on refused to comply with the said promise.
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 victim is major aged about 26
years. There is no clinching evidence to suggest that the applicant misled the
victim from the beginning. The informant has converted a failed consensual
physical relationship into a criminal case. The applicant has no criminal
history and is in jail since 12.9.2024. He undertakes to cooperate with the
trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
BAIL No. 41211 of 2025
2
6. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the judgments of the Supreme Court passed in Pramod
Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2019 (9) SCC
608 and Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2022
SCC OnLine SC 886 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- Rohit Prajapati, 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.)
April 20, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…