Aditya Vishwakarma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

Aditya Vishwakarma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release of applicant Aditya Vishwakarma on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned (sureties to be verified before the release order), subject to conditions: no tampering with evidence, no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses, and appearance before the trial court on dates fixed; breach to be ground for cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, accused in Case Crime No. 586 of 2024 under Sections 69, 74, 352, 351(2), 191(2) B.N.S., 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, 3/4 D.P. Act and 3/4, 7/8 POCSO Act, is entitled to bail during the pendency of trial. +2 more

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, submissions of counsel, evidence on record and the aforementioned judgments of the Supreme Court, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and allowed the bail application, ordering release on a personal bond and two sureties subject to stated conditions.

Key takeaways

The 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.obiter¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Krishan Pahal, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:73152; decided 7.5.2025) allowed the bail application of Aditya Vishwakarma in CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 10806 of 2025 arising from Case Crime No. 586 of 2024, Police Station Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar, registered under Sections 69, 74, 352, 351(2), 191(2) B.N.S., 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, 3/4 D.P. Act and 3/4, 7/8 POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that the applicant established a corporeal relationship with the victim on a false promise of marriage and later refused to honour it; the victim was reported to be 17 years old by ossification test. Taking into consideration the Supreme Court decisions in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886 (physical relationship on a false promise to marry cannot be termed rape) and in Jaya Mala v. State of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Mohd. Imran Khan v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192 (margin of 1 to 2 years in radiological age determination), and without expressing any opinion on merits, the Court found the applicant had made out a case for bail. The applicant, in custody since 13.12.2024, was ordered released on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence, not intimidating witnesses, and appearing on fixed dates, with breach constituting ground for cancellation; the observations were stated not to affect the trial Judge's independent assessment.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73152

Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10806 of 2025 Applicant :- Aditya Vishwakarma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

List has been revised.

Compliance affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. and supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant are taken on record.

Heard Sri Rakesh Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 07.04.2025.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.586 of 2024, under Sections 69, 74, 352, 351(2), 191(2) B.N.S., 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, 3/4 D.P. Act and 3/4, 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

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.

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 by her looks seems to be major, although as per ossification test report, she is 17 years old and a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side.

Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that 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. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In

case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

The Supreme Court 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 , has stated that entering into any kind of corporeal relationship with a person on the false promise to marry cannot be termed as rape.

The Supreme Court in Jaya Mala vs. State of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192 has opined that the radiologist cannot predict the correct date of birth rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the aforementioned judgments of the Supreme Court, 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 .

Let the applicant- Aditya Vishwakarma , 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.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

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.

Order Date :- 7.5.2025 (Ravi Kant)

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad