Allowed

Dhruv Singh Rajawat v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2025BAIL/691/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Sections 69 and 351(3) BNS for alleged physical relationship on false promise of marriage. Relying on Supreme Court precedent that consensual relations on such promise do not amount to rape, the High Court granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, subject to conditions including non-tampering and attendance at trial.

Dhruv Singh Rajawat vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5076

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 691 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Dhruv Singh Rajawat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Balbeer Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Balbeer Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 640 of 2024, under Sections 69, 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station- Sikandra, DistrictAgra, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have established corporeal relationship with the victim, who happens to be 31 years old lady, on the false promise of marriage, and subsequently, he is stated to have refused to comply with the said betrothal.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about fourteen days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The allegations are per se false. The applicant himself is a lad of 32 years. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.11.2024 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 A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶12

The Supreme Court in case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2019 (9) SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and Another ,

¶13

reported in 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

In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

¶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- Dhruv Singh Rajawat , 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 :- 9.1.2025/ Vikas

¶22

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶23

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

Dhruv Singh Rajawat v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhruv Singh Rajawat 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

Similar cases

Abhishek Bhatnagar vs State of U.P.

Nirmala Devi vs State of U.P.

Sourav Nagar vs State of U.P.

Ram Prakash Dhobi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sohil Khan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sarfaraj vs State of U.P. and 3 Others