Allahabad High Court
SACHIN KUMAR SINGH ALIAS SACHIN SURYAVANSHI ALIAS SONUversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the nature and seriousness of the alleged offences, coupled with the alleged pattern of conduct, justified the denial of bail.
Summary
The applicant, Sachin Kumar Singh, sought bail for a series of offences including IPC sections on murder, kidnapping, and the IT Act, alleging that the FIR was filed after a long delay and that the allegations of fraud, blackmail and sexual exploitation were false. The prosecution contended that the accused lured a young woman via social media, entered into a sham marriage, extorted money and valuables, and recorded indecent material, establishing a pattern of similar conduct with other women. The applicant argued that the marriage was genuine, the victim was an adult, no incriminating material was found, and the case was a result of a conspiracy. The court examined the seriousness of the charges, the alleged modus operandi, and the existence of other pending cases against the accused. Concluding that the allegations indicated a serious threat to the victim and a pattern of criminal conduct, the court denied bail, directing the trial to proceed expeditiously.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in view of the seriousness of the offences under the IPC and the IT Act.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR undermines the prosecution's case and warrants bail.
- Whether the alleged pattern of conduct and other pending cases affect the bail decision.
- Whether the accused poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 115(2), 119(1), 125(2), 127(2), 303, 308(7), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(2)(3), 61(1), 64, 89
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115, 119, 125, 127, 303, 308, 318, 323, 336, 338, 340, 351, 376, 504, 506, 61, 64, 89
- Information Technology Act — s. 67
Subjects
- bail
- social media fraud
- marriage fraud
- blackmail
- IPC
- IT Act
- delay in FIR
- pattern of conduct
- criminal intimidation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6278 of 2025
Sachin Kumar Singh Alias Sachin Suryavanshi Alias
Sonu .....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhisht Jaiswal, Ali Hasan, Istiyaq Ali,
Kamesh Kumar Arya, Pranav Tiwary
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pankaj Kumar, Shivam Kumar
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 141 out of 310)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Second counter affidavit filed today by learned
counsel for the informant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abhisht
Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashank Mishra,
Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the
informant as well as Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the
State and also perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 350 of 2024, under Sections
308(7), 303, 115(2), 119(1), 127(2), 61(1), 125(2), 351(2)(3), 318(4), 338,
336(3), 340(2), 89 & 64 of BNS and Section 67A of I.T. Act, Police Station
- Kotwali, District - Budaun, during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The prosecution case, as borne out from the FIR, is that the victim, a
young woman aged about 25 years, came in contact with the applicant,
namely Sachin Kumar Singh @ Sachin Suryavanshi @ Sonu Verma @
Surya, through social media in May, 2021. It is alleged that the accused
persistently approached the victim by sending friend requests from multiple
mobile numbers and, upon establishing contact, created a fake social media
profile in the name of "Kirti Kumari" to conceal his true identity and marital
status. By adopting deceitful means and extending false assurance of
BAIL No. 6278 of 2025
2
marriage, the accused is stated to have gained the confidence of the victim as
well as her family members.
5. It is further alleged that the accused, by exerting emotional pressure and
issuing threats, compelled the victim to participate in a purported marriage
ceremony, which was a sham, followed by fraudulent registration of
marriage before the Sub-Registrar by misrepresentation of facts. Thereafter,
the accused allegedly established physical relations with the victim against
her will and recorded objectionable photographs and videos, which were
subsequently used to blackmail and coerce her.
6. The prosecution further alleges that the victim was forced to part with
substantial amounts of money, jewellery, and other valuables. It is also
alleged that the applicant, along with his family members, subjected the
victim to physical and mental cruelty, wrongful confinement, and criminal
intimidation. The victim has further alleged continuous harassment,
including threats to her life, attempts to defame her through social media,
and acts of violence, ultimately leading to her escape and return to her
parental home.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
7. The story is that the applicant and the victim came into contact through
Facebook, whereafter a consensual corporeal association developed between
them, and both decided to convert it into a marital relationship. It is
contended that the said marriage was duly registered before the Registrar of
Marriages at Budaun. However, owing to subsequent discord and
deterioration in their relationship, the present FIR has been instituted as a
consequence of the soured relationship.
8. The FIR was lodged on 27.09.2024 at about 03:29 PM in respect of
alleged incidents spanning from 04.12.2021 to 23.09.2024, which indicates
an inordinate delay and creates doubt regarding the genuineness of the
prosecution case.
9. The allegations levelled in the FIR are per se false and unsubstantiated,
inasmuch as no incriminating or objectionable photographs or videos have
been recovered from the possession of the applicant.
10. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no
connection whatsoever with the alleged offences.
BAIL No. 6278 of 2025
3
11. The victim is major, aged about 25 years, and thus there was no occasion
for the applicant to have lured, deceived, or exploited her in the manner
alleged.
12. The marriage certificate issued in favour of the parties was subsequently
cancelled by the Registrar of Marriages ex parte on technical grounds, which
creates inconsistency in the prosecution case, particularly in light of the
simultaneous allegations of dowry demand.
13. There exists a concerted conspiracy involving certain persons, namely
Shruti Rathi, Parul Gupta, and the informant, whereby the applicant has been
falsely implicated in one more case.
14. The victim has admitted to having cohabited with the applicant, and that
she, in collusion with the said individuals, has instituted successive
complaints against the applicant.
15. Criminal history attributed to the applicant has been duly explained in
the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.
16. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.10.2024, deserves to be
released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse
the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE:
17. The bail application has been vehemently opposed by contending that the
applicant has misused his clout and adopted a calculated modus operandi of
luring innocent and vulnerable young women into relationships through
social media platforms.
18. The applicant was already married to one Swati Verma, and the said
marriage is still subsisting. Despite this, during the continuance of his first
marriage, the applicant is alleged to have entered into a registered marriage
with the victim, thereby acting deceitfully.
19. The applicant had taken indecent photographs and videos of the victim,
which have been handed over to the Investigating Officer during the course
of investigation.
20. The applicant has similarly exploited other women, namely Parul Gupta
and Shruti Rathi, thereby indicating a pattern of conduct, lending credence to
BAIL No. 6278 of 2025
4
the allegations levelled by the victim.
CONCLUSION:
21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the
modus operandi of the applicant seems to be of luring innocent women into
relationship as is evident from the instant case and the FIR No. 0347 of
2024, u/s 376, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 67A of I.T. Act, P.S.
Kotwali, District - Budaun lodged by another women, Shruti Rathi against
the applicant, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.
22. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
23. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the
recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs.
State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of
India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
24. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
March 23, 2026
Siddhant
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…