Allowed

Roshan Prajapati @ Rohit v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Feb 2025BAIL/4144/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Sections 376, 420, 406 and 506 IPC for alleged physical relationship on false promise of marriage. Court granted bail without expressing opinion on merits, relying on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence and remaining present before the Trial Court.

Roshan Prajapati @ Rohit vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29537

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4144 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Roshan Prajapati @ Rohit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hare Krishna Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Hare Krishna Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.253 of 2024, under Sections 376, 420, 406 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sipari Bazar, District Jhansi, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have established corporeal relationship with the victim for a period of about one and half year on the false promise of marriage and had later on refused to comply with the said promise.

¶11

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 is major aged about 19 years. 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. The criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.09.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

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

¶13

The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of

¶14

several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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 .

¶18

Let the applicant- Roshan Prajapati @ Rohit , 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.

¶19

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in

¶23

forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶24

Order Date :- 3.3.2025 (Ravi Kant)

¶25

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶26

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

Roshan Prajapati @ Rohit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Prajapati @ Rohit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kumari Devi and Another vs State of U.P.

Firoj Nat Alias Kariya vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akhilesh Sahani vs State of U.P.

Rambabu vs State of U.P.

Mahesh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raju vs State of U.P. and 3 Others