Sachin vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2800 of 2026

Sachin

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

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

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Suresh Chandra Srivastava, Ram Jeet Dubey, Savita Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 13

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶10

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No.366/2025, Under Sections 69, 351 (3) BNS, 2023 (old Sections 506 & 376 IPC) , Police Station - Ahirauli, District - Ambedkar Nagar, is seeking enlargement on bail.

¶11

The brief facts of the present case are that an FIR dated 19.12.2025 under Sections 69, 123, 351 (3) BNS, 2023 (old Sections 328 and 506 IPC) has been lodged against the applicant alleging therein that the daughter of the informant was using a Mobile No. 8808460520 three years ago. The applicant came to know about the said number and started indecent conversation with his daughter. The applicant had took away the mobile of her daughter and discontinued the earlier number. The daughter of the informant after some labour and work had purchased a Mobile No. 7054888500, which was somehow obtained by the applicant and started sending indecent video and messages. It is further alleged therein that the applicant started coming closer to his daughter by giving her a false promise of marriage, which was resisted by her daughter. She had been given some intoxicating drugs, despite the resistance by her daughter, applicant undressed her and established physical relationship forcibly and this has been going on from last five years.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the FIR and the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, it has

¶13

BAIL No. 2800 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

come out that she was in love with the applicant. She has admitted that she has made physical relationship with the applicant. She has also stated that she does not want to continue the relationship with the applicant. It has further been stated that after giving some intoxicating drugs with egg, applicant had forcibly established physical relationship with her. Victim is a major lady and she continued in this relationship for last five years, so it cannot be said that the applicant by giving false promise of marriage exploited her physically by establishing physical relationship forcibly.

¶16

It is further submitted that the alleged video has not been recovered by the Police during investigation.

¶17

It is further submitted that the victim being a major lady had adequate intelligence and maturity to understand the significance and morality associated with the act, she was consenting too. She was in relationship, as per the admitted case of the prosecution, from last five years and consented for the physical relationship. Being a major women, she was capable of understanding the complications and issues with the relationship. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2013 SC 2071 and the judgement dated 7.4.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Biswajyoti Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal and another in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4261 of 2024. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Samadhan Sitatram Manmothe Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in AIR Online 2025 SC 1099.

¶18

It is further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he has falsely been implicated in the present case and he is in jail since 20.12.2025.

¶19

On the other hand learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer and on the basis of instruction received has submitted that the statement given by the victim is against the applicant, which made out a case against him.

¶20

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the record of the case and judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Deepak

¶21

BAIL No. 2800 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

Gulati (supra) , Biswajyoti Chatterjee (supra) and Samadhan Sitatram Manmothe (supra) , prima facie, it appears that as per the case of the prosecution particularly victim that she was in love and physical relationship with the applicant for prolonged period of five years and apparently it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical relation was because of alleged promise made by the applicant to marry her whereas now the victim is not ready to marry with the applicant; learned AGA on the basis of instructions has submitted that the alleged video has not been recovered by the Police during investigation, as has been alleged by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, therefore, it is a fit case in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶24

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.

¶25

Let the applicant Sachin be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶30

(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.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

(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.

¶34

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.

¶35

BAIL No. 2800 of 2026

¶36

4

¶37

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.

¶38

April 21, 2026 Ashish

¶39

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶40

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sachin v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Sushil Kumar Yadav @ Sushil vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sunita Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Juvenile Xyz (Minor) Thru. His Mother and Natural Guardian vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Santram Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Angad Gaud vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko.