Allowed

Kuldeep Kumar Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2025BAIL/6879/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought bail for offences under Sections 69, 115(2), 351(3) BNS in a case alleging a false promise of marriage. Counsel argued delayed FIR, consensual relationship and major victim. Relying on Supreme Court precedent on bail norms, the court granted bail without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and presence before trial court.

Kuldeep Kumar Chauhan vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41653

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6879 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Kuldeep Kumar Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Madhukar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Madhukar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.202 of 2024, under Sections 69, 115(2) and 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station- Khetasarai, District- Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

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.

¶10

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 FIR is delayed by about 23 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 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 victim is major aged about 22 years as per the ossification test report. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶12

The Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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 .

¶16

Let the applicant- Kuldeep Kumar Chauhan , 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.

¶17

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 21.3.2025 Vikas

¶22

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kuldeep Kumar Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Kumar Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Lalji Gond vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandan Chauhan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd. Rashid Husain vs State of U.P.

Sheshman Urf Ganesh Yadav vs State of U.P.

Waseem Malik vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others