Allahabad High Court

RAHUL JAINversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA

Holding

The Court held that, on the material before it, no prima facie offence under Section 69 B.N.S. was made out and therefore allowed the anticipatory bail.

Summary

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Rahul Jain under Section 69 of the B.N.S. The applicant claimed false implication, asserting that the FIR admitted a consensual relationship and that the victim, a married woman, could not enter into a valid marriage, rendering the alleged offence of false promise of marriage untenable. The informant argued that the applicant had exploited the victim, threatened to publicise videos, and that the alleged offence was grave. The Court examined the FIR, noting the victim’s marital status and the lack of criminal antecedents of the applicant, and concluded that prima facie the offence under Section 69 could not be established. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions, emphasizing that the order is limited to the bail application and not an opinion on the merits of the case.

Issues considered

Whether the facts alleged in the FIR constitute an offence under Section 69 of the B.N.S. involving false promise of marriage or inducement of sexual intercourse.
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in the absence of a prima facie case and given the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents.
Whether the applicant’s marital status of the victim precludes the applicability of Section 69.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 69

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 69 B.N.S.
false promise of marriage
criminal procedure
bail conditions
marital status
no criminal antecedents

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 2661 of 2026

Rahul Jain
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Kumar Gautam, Manish Kumar
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Sri Utkarsh Khanna, Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of
the informant, which is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Utkarsh Khanna, learned
counsel for the informant, and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No. 71 of 2026, under Section 69 of the B.N.S.,
2023, Police Station – Vijaynagar, District Ghaziabad, with a prayer to
enlarge him on anticipatory bail, till the conclusion of the trial.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case and he seeks anticipatory bail
on the following grounds :-

i. It is an admitted case in the First Information Report (FIR) that the
applicant and the victim were in a consensual relationship.

ii. The victim is a married woman having an eight year old child and is
not divorced. Therefore, no valid promise of marriage could have been
made by the applicant, as no lawful marriage could have been entered into
between the parties.

iii. The allegations regarding forcibly establishing physical relations by
threatening to make videos and photographs of the victim viral are wholly
NABAIL No. 2661 of 2026
2

false and are not based on any material.

iv. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and undertakes to cooperate
with the investigation and trial, if any.

v. The applicant further undertakes not to tamper with evidence or
intimidate the witnesses.

5. Sri Khanna, learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand,
contends that the applicant is the primary accused in the present case, who
took undue advantage of the victim and established physical relations
with her. It is further alleged that the applicant is now threatening to make
videos and photographs viral. The victim was pregnant with the
applicant's child. The offence alleged against the applicant is quite grave
and he may not be granted any indulgence by this Court.

6. Learned A.G.A. has adopted the submissions advanced on behalf of the
informant, but does not dispute that the applicant has no criminal
antecedents.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material on record.

8. A perusal of the FIR indicates that the applicant and the victim were
pursuing EMT training together. The applicant is alleged to have
proposed marriage to the victim. The victim mentions in the FIR that the
applicant threatened to kill himself and promised that in future, once the
victim divorces her husband, he would marry her. It is admitted in the FIR
that consensual physical relations were established between the parties. It
further appears that upon the victim's husband becoming aware of the
relationship, the victim sought to end it. Many other allegations have been
made in the FIR, which are not required to be examined at this stage.
However, on the face of the record, it appears that the victim is still
married to her husband.

9. Once the victim cannot enter into marriage with the applicant, then
offence under Section 69 B.N.S. of making a false promise of marriage or
inducing sexual intercourse by making a false promise or through
deceitful means cannot be attracted. The victim is an educated woman and
NABAIL No. 2661 of 2026
3

a mother of an eight years old child. It has been mentioned by the learned
counsel for the applicant that she is living separately from her husband. In
such circumstances, prima facie, this Court is of the view that offence
under Section 69 of the B.N.S. may not be made out. The applicant has no
criminal antecedents.

10. In view of all the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the
case, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.

11. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

12. In the event of the arrest of the applicant- Rahul Jain, involved in the
aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/Court
concerned, with the following conditions:-

i. the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police
officer as and when required;

ii. that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer;

iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission
of the Court;

iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness;

13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

14. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively
for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be
considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
March 19, 2026
Kushal

Digitally signed by :-
KUSHAL AGRAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…