Allowed

Uday Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2026BAIL/1813/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought bail in an FIR involving allegations of physical relations under the pretext of marriage. The court, relying on Supreme Court precedents holding such charges often lack evidence if consensual, allowed bail without examining merits, noting the State could not dispute the legal position.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Uday Pratap Singh on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions.

Uday Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1813 of 2026

Uday Pratap Singh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

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

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Sheo Prakash Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 13

¶10

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶11

Sri Abhinav Srivastava, learned Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of side opposite, is taken on record.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Counsel for the side opposite, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶13

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 216 of 2025, under Sections 69, 115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Pratapgarh.

¶14

While pressing the instant application, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the informant/victim has levelleved allegations in the FIR against the applicant to the effect that on the pretext of false promise of marriage the applicant established physical relations with her, thus, if the case of prosecution is taken on its face value then in that eventuality, 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 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 and Amol Bhagwan Nehul vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1230, Pramod Kumar Navratna versus State of Chattisgarh and others, 2026 INSC 124 .

¶16

6. It is also stated that the allegations to attract Section(s) 115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS are bogus and to establish the same there is no evidence available with the prosecutions.

¶17

In these circumstances, the applicant, who has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 05.12.2025, is entitled to be released 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.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the applicant. However, he could not dispute the above contention made by the applicant's counsel.

¶19

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment(s) referred above and without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the application has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

¶20

BAIL No. 1813 of 2026

¶21

¶22

Let the applicant- Uday Pratap Singh be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned forthwith. Applicant is also directed to furnish two reliable sureties, out of which one shall be the family member of the accused-applicant, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶26

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶27

(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.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

(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.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

Application is disposed of.

¶34

March 13, 2026 Jyoti/-

¶35

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶36

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Uday Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Sarita vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Ghausia Khan and Ors. vs Mohd. Wasiq Khan and Ors.

Anand Kumar Divedi vs Shri Anil Kumar, the Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. Lko.

Pankaj @ Pankaj Chaurasiya vs Purnendra Mishra Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Patti Distt. Pratapgarh

M/S Galaxy Press Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Thru. Its Managing Director Namely Pankaj Kumar Gupta vs Mr. Anunaya Jha Posted as District Magistrate Hardoi and 2 Others

Smt. Vindhyawasni Devi and Another vs Amit Kumar Singh, Basic Education Officer Distt. Gonda