Allahabad High Court
SALMANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail and allowed the bail application.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Salman, accused in a criminal case (Crime No. 682 of 2025) under IPC sections 69 and 351(2) for allegedly establishing a false marital relationship with a 20‑year‑old victim and later reneging on the promise. The applicant’s counsel argued that he is innocent, has no prior criminal record, and that the victim’s age and lack of concrete evidence undermine the prosecution’s case. The State opposed bail, contending the seriousness of the alleged offences. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Kunal Chatterjee, Pramod S. Pawar, Ansaar Mohammad), the Court found that the applicant had made out a case for bail and ordered his release on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions. The bail order emphasized that the decision does not prejudice the trial court’s independent assessment of evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case under IPC sections 69 and 351(2) involving alleged false promise of marriage.
- Whether the absence of solid evidence and the applicant’s clean record justify bail.
- Whether the conditions imposed are sufficient to safeguard the trial process.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 351(2), 69
Subjects
- bail
- false promise of marriage
- IPC 69
- IPC 351
- criminal intimidation
- trial conditions
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44972 of 2025
Salman
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jigyasha Tripathi, Surendra Kumar
Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Deepak Kumar Patel, G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No.181 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Surendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant,
Sri Deepak Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the informant, Sri R.M.
Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 682 of 2025, under Sections 69,
351(2) BNS, Police Station Sadar, District Agra, 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. As per ossification test report, the
age of the victim has come out to be 20 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.
BAIL No. 44972 of 2025
2
6. Learned counsel has further stated that there is no criminal history of the
applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.11.2025 and he is
ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he
will 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 judgments of the Supreme Court passed in Kunal
Chatterjee vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (Special Leave petition (Crl.)
No. 7004 of 2025), 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, 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- Salman, who is involved in aforementioned case crime
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to
following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties
be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent
opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 23, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…