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

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 92 of 2026, Under Sections 69, 351 (2) and 351 (3) BNS, 2023 (old Section 506 IPC), Police Station -Mankapur, District - Gonda, is seeking enlargement on bail.

¶13

The brief facts of the present case are that an FIR dated 07.03.2026 under Sections 69, 351 (2) and 351 (3) BNS, 2023 (old Section 506 IPC) has been lodged against the applicant and his family members by the victim herself alleging therein that she resided for about 9 years at her maternal uncle's house in Village Udaipur, where she developed a relationship with the applicant. The applicant on the false promise of marriage established physical relations with her. Subsequently, when she returned to her native village Kudasaan, he continued visiting her residence and maintained physical relations. Upon being asked to marry, applicant had refused for the same. It is further alleged therein that co-accused persons namely Krishna Kumar, Geeta, and Meera threatened her that if she approached the Police, they would circulate her objectionable video on social media and would ensure that her marriage would not take place.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, 2023 has stated that in the month of June and July, 2025, the applicant refused to marry her and even thereafter physical relation was established between them with her consent.

¶15

It is further submitted that victim in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, 2023 has stated that she was in love affair with the applicant for last 8 to 9 years.

¶16

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

¶17

BAIL No. 2971 of 2026

¶18

2

¶19

during investigation.

¶20

It is further submitted that victim is a major lady and she continued in this relationship for last 8 to 9 years, so it cannot be said that the applicant by giving false promise of marriage exploited her physically by establishing physical relationship forcibly.

¶21

It is further submitted that the applicant had never given any false promise of marriage for developing physical relation with the informant for prolonged period of eight to nine years, so it cannot be said that the physical relationship was merely because of alleged promise of marriage. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Samadhan Sitatram Manmothe Vs. State of Maharastra and Another reported in AIR Online 2025 SC 1099 .

¶22

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

¶23

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 but is unable to dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶24

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the record of the case and judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 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 8 to 9 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; the alleged video has not been recovered by the Police during investigation, as therefore, it is a fit case in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶25

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.

¶26

Let the applicant Aasharam 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:-

¶27

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

¶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

¶32

BAIL No. 2971 of 2026

¶33

3

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

(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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

April 24, 2026

¶41

Ashish

¶42

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶43

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

Aasharam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aasharam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Deepak @ Kanja vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Arpit Dubey @ Ankit vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

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

Ram Bali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

Tazkeer Alam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mr. X Accused/ Revisionist Case Crime No. 93 of 2025 P.S. N.M.P.T. Distt. Shravasti vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.