Anubhav vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Anubhav vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release of the applicant Anubhav on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with verification of sureties before the release order, subject to the stated conditions (no tampering with evidence; in-person appearance at opening of case, framing of charge and the Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. statement stage).

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, implicated in Case Crime No. 65 of 2025 at Police Station Bhavanpur, District Meerut, under Sections 69, 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352 B.N.S. for allegedly establishing a corporeal relationship with the victim on a false promise of marriage, has made out a case for release on bail during the pendency of trial.

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the fact that the victim is already married and has not got that marriage dissolved, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar and Ansaar Mohammad, and expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court held that the applicant has made out a case for bail and allowed the bail application.

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed that the applicant Anubhav be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the sureties to be verified before issuance of the release order, subject to conditions that (i) the applicant shall not tamper with evidence, and (ii) he shall appear in person before the Trial Court on dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S., deliberate or unjustified absence being open to be treated as abuse of the liberty of bail; breach of any of these conditions shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Key takeaways

It was expressly made clear that 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¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (Krishan Pahal, J.) — BAIL GRANTED. Applicant, charged under Sections 69, 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352 B.N.S. (Case Crime No. 65 of 2025, P.S. Bhavanpur, Distt. Meerut) on the prosecution story that he had established a corporeal relationship with the victim on a false promise of marriage and later refused to honour it, sought bail pending trial. His counsel argued he was absolutely innocent and falsely implicated; that the 22-year-old victim was already married and had not dissolved that marriage; that there was no clinching evidence he had misled her from the beginning; that a failed consensual physical relationship had been converted into a criminal case; that he had no criminal history; and that he had been in jail since 19.3.2025 and would cooperate with the trial. The learned A.G.A. opposed but did not dispute these submissions. Taking into consideration the settled Supreme Court law in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 (9) SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held the applicant had made out a case for bail and ALLOWED the application (Order dated 28.4.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:64813), directing release on a personal bond and two like-amount sureties (to be verified), subject to conditions of no tampering with evidence and in-person appearance at case-opening, charge-framing and the Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. statement stage, with deliberate absence punishable as abuse of bail liberty; breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation of bail; observations in granting bail expressly not to affect the trial judge's independent assessment.