Shrawan Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

Shrawan Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail application allowed; applicant Shrawan Kumar Yadav to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, sureties to be verified before issuance of the release order, subject to conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence and shall remain personally present before the Trial Court on dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S.; deliberate absence may be treated as abuse of liberty of bail; breach of any condition to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in Case Crime No. 162 of 2024 (Sections 376(2)(N), 323, 406, 507 IPC, P.S. Kaptanganj, District Basti) during the pendency of trial. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, submissions of counsel, evidence on record, and the settled law of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (2022 INSC 690) and Manish Sisodia (2024 INSC 595), 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.

Ratio / Principle

The Court avoided expressing any opinion on the merits, holding that whether the promise of marriage was genuine or false and whether the physical relationship was consensual is for the Trial Court to conclude on the evidence presented and its interpretation as per law.

Key takeaways

The applicant was ordered released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with sureties to be verified before the release order, subject to conditions including non-tampering with evidence and personal presence before the Trial Court on dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S.; breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation of bail.ratio¶¶16
Observations made in granting bail shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.obiter¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Krishan Pahal, J.), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2552 of 2025, order dated 19.2.2025 — bail sought in Case Crime No. 162 of 2024 under Sections 376(2)(N), 323, 406, 507 IPC, P.S. Kaptanganj, District Basti, alleging physical relationship with the victim on a false promise of marriage subsequently reneged upon. Relying on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (2019 (9) SCC 608) and Ansaar Mohammad (2022 SCC OnLine SC 886) — cited for the proposition that corporeal relationship on a false promise to marry cannot be termed rape — and on Satender Kumar Antil (2022 INSC 690) and Manish Sisodia (2024 INSC 595), and noting counsel's submissions that the applicant was in jail since 21.9.2024 with no criminal history, the Court declined to express any opinion on whether the promise was genuine or false or whether the relationship was consensual, leaving that to the Trial Court on the evidence. Bail allowed on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, with conditions against tampering with evidence and requiring personal appearance at trial stages (including statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S.); breach to invite cancellation; observations not to affect the trial Judge's independent assessment.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23995

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2552 of 2025

Applicant :- Shrawan Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Adarsh Shukla,Ashutosh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

List has been revised.

Heard Ms. Adarsh Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri J.K. Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 162 of 2024, under Sections 376(2)(N), 323, 406, 507 I.P.C., Police Station Kaptanganj, District Basti, 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. 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 21.9.2024 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 State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but has not supported the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

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.

This Court has avoided expressing its opinion as the case hinges on whether the applicant's promise of marriage was genuine or false and whether the physical relationship was consensual or not. It is for the Trial Court to draw a conclusion which will depend on the evidence presented before it and its interpretation as per law.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 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- Shrawan Kumar Yadav, 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.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

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 :- 19.2.2025 Shalini

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad