Allahabad High Court
PREETAM KUMAR GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court granted bail to the applicant, finding a prima‑facie case for bail.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Preetam Kumar Gupta, who was arrested in connection with FIR No. 652 of 2025 alleging offences under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352, 64(2)M of the IPC and Sections 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that Gupta, under the pretext of a marriage promise, had a sexual relationship with a girl who was a minor when the relationship began in 2017, later refusing to marry her. The defence argued that the relationship was consensual, the victim was an adult at the time of filing the FIR, there was no medical evidence, and Gupta had no prior criminal record. The court examined the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the CrPC, noted the absence of corroborative medical proof, and, without passing on the merits, held that the applicant had made out a prima‑facie case for bail. Accordingly, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite allegations under the POCSO Act and other IPC sections.
- Whether the alleged relationship, initiated when the victim was a minor, constitutes an offence warranting denial of bail.
- Whether the lack of medical corroboration and the victim's age at the time of FIR affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 351(3), 352, 64(2)M
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5(l), 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- sexual exploitation
- minor
- consent
- Indian Penal Code
- Criminal Procedure Code
- sureties
- court conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5280 of 2026
Preetam Kumar Gupta
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Singh, Aryan Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Aradhana Singh, G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.93 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Learned State Law Officer has informed that the
notice to the informant has been served on 25.02.2026, but none is present
on behalf of the informant.
2. Heard Sri P.C. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Aryan
Srivastava, Sri Anand Pratap Singh, learned counsels for the applicant, Ms.
Aradhana Singh, learned counsel for the High Court Legal Service
Committee, Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and
perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.652 of 2025, under Sections
115(2), 351(3), 352, 64(2)M BNS and Section 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police
Station Cantt, District Varanasi, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have established
corporeal relationship with the victim on the pretext of purchasing certain
floor garners from her and kept on maintaining the said relationship on the
false promise of marriage, but subsequently refused to comply with the said
promise. In the meantime, the victim is stated to have come to know of the
marital status of the applicant, as he was already married; as such, the instant
FIR was instituted by her.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is
delayed and as per school certificate, the date of birth of the victim is
BAIL No. 5280 of 2026
2
05.09.2005. At the time of institution of the FIR, she was major. She has
deliberately stated that the relationship was established in the year 2017 to
make it fall within the purview of POCSO Act. The statement of the victim,
as narrated by her at the stage of recording of her statement under Section
183 BNSS, indicates a different story, whereby the applicant is stated to
have asked her to bear him a son, and on her refusal, he is stated to have
even refused to comply with the promise of marriage.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has further stated that a matter
of a consensual relationship has been converted into a criminal case by the
informant. It is true that the applicant is a married person now, but he was
not married at the initiation, he got married during the subsistence of the said
relationship. The act of the applicant may fall within the category of moral
turpitude, but no offence is made out, as the relationship was all consensual
and there is no medical corroboration of the incident. The applicant has no
criminal history and is in jail since 20.11.2025. He undertakes to cooperate
with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the High Court Legal Service Committee
and the learned State Law Officer have opposed the bail on the ground that
the applicant had established relationship with the victim since 2017, when
she was minor; as such, he is not entitled to bail.
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 statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS
and the fact that there is no medical corroboration of the incident, 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- Preetam Kumar Gupta, 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
BAIL No. 5280 of 2026
3
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
Checking your session…