Allowed

Sukh Pal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2026BAIL/1485/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application in a false-promise-of-marriage case under Sections 69 and 352 BNS. The court noted the applicant had no criminal history, had been jailed since January 2026, and that chances of conviction were bleak per Supreme Court precedent, and allowed bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties each of like amount, subject to conditions.

Sukh Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1485 of 2026

Sukh Pal

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 13

¶9

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶10

Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh, Advocate, has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant is taken on record.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶12

The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 429/2025, under Sections- 69, 352 B.N.S., Police Station- Pasgawan, District- Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent, has falsely been implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶14

It is further submitted that the story set up by the prosecutrix/victim, borne out from the record, would indicate that the applicant had established physical relations on a false promise of marriage with the prosecutrix/victim, was aged about 30 years, a widow, and mother of a six-year-old child, which story infact is not correct.

¶15

It is further submitted that if the allegations levelled in the FIR in issue, against the applicant which are to the effect that on the false pretext of marriage the applicant established physical relations with the prosecutrix/victim are taken on its face value then in that eventuality, the possibility of conviction of applicant is bleak in view of law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment(s) rendered in the case of Deepak

¶16

BAIL No. 1485 of 2026

¶17

¶18

Gulati vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675; Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2021) 7 SCC; Mandar Deepak Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2110; Amol Bhagwan Nehul vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1230 and Pramod Kumar Navratna vs. State of Chattisgarh and others, 2026 INSC 124.

¶19

It is also submitted that as per the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred judgments to attract the alleged offence, the allegation should be to the effect that from the inception, the consent by the victim is a result of a false promise to marry and from the F.I.R., it reflects that the said contents in its true spirit are missing.

¶20

It is further stated that prima facie, it appears that F.I.R was lodged to get the financial benefits from the State exchequer.

¶21

It is further submitted that applicant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 08.01.2026. In these circumstances, the present application is liable to be allowed and the applicant may be enlarged on bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial and would also not influence the prosecution witnesses.

¶22

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail, however he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the applicant.

¶23

Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A., F.I.R. as also the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above, including that the applicant is in jail since 08.01.2026 as also the chances of conviction of the applicant in the instant case, this Court finds that the present applicant is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

¶24

Let the applicant- Sukh Pal be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties (one of family member/close relative) each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :-

¶25

(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶26

BAIL No. 1485 of 2026

¶27

¶28

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶29

(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶30

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶31

(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶32

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶33

(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶34

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶35

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶36

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this order.

¶37

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶38

February 26, 2026 Preeti

¶39

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sukh Pal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukh Pal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Chandra Sekhar Azad @ Pintoo Verma vs Sri Vikash Kumar Superintendent of Police Balrampur

Abhishek Mishra vs Sadhna Srivastava Presently Dir. in Internal Audit and Accounts Lko. and 2 Others

X Accused of Case Crime No. 272/2025 Thru. His Guardian/ Father Mr Y vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Kumar Rana vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Shahabuddin Khan and Others vs Sri Anand Kumar Singh, M.D., Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Lko.

Dr. Pronoti Singh and 13 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Higher Education Lko. and 5 Others