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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Waseem Malik 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, with sureties to be verified before issuance of the release order, subject to conditions: (i) not to tamper with the evidence during trial; (ii) not to pressurise/intimidate the prosecution witnesses; (iii) to appear before the trial court on the dates fixed; breach of any condition to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, booked in Case Crime No. 224 of 2024 (PS Babugarh, District Hapur) under Sections 328, 376, 504, 420 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, should be released on bail during the pendency of trial. +1 more

Court's answer

The bail application is allowed: considering the facts and circumstances, submissions of counsel, the 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 has made out a case for bail.

Key takeaways

The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on whether the promise of marriage was genuine or false and whether the physical relationship was consensual, holding that the conclusion is for the Trial Court to draw from the evidence presented before it and its interpretation as per law.obiter¶14
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.; order dated 21.3.2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC:41798) allowed Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6886 of 2025 filed by Waseem Malik seeking bail in Case Crime No. 224 of 2024, Police Station Babugarh, District Hapur, under Sections 328, 376, 504, 420 of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, the prosecution story being that he established a corporeal relationship with the victim on a false promise of marriage and later refused to comply with it. Invoking the Supreme Court's position in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (2019 (9) SCC 608) and Ansaar Mohammad (2022 SCC OnLine SC 886) that a corporeal relationship entered into on a false promise to marry cannot be termed rape, and taking into account the settled law in Satender Kumar Antil (2022 INSC 690) and Manish Sisodia (2024 INSC 595), the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail, expressly without expressing any opinion on whether the promise was genuine or the relationship consensual, leaving that to the Trial Court. Release was ordered on a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount (sureties to be verified beforehand), subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence, not intimidating prosecution witnesses and appearing on dates fixed, breach being grounds for cancellation; the applicant had been in custody since 22.07.2024.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41798

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6886 of 2025

Applicant :- Waseem Malik Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Tawvab Ahmed Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

List has been revised.

Heard Sri Tawvab Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 224 of 2024, under Sections 328, 376, 504, 420 of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, Police Station Babugarh, District Hapur, 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. It is also argued that the victim is a widow aged about 32 years. She 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 22.07.2024 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.

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- Waseem Malik, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

iii) The applicant will 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:- 21.3.2025 Siddhant

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad