Nitesh Patel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3299 of 2026

Nitesh Patel

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bhuvan Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

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. 103 of 2026, under sections 69 of the B.N.S., Police Station Chinhat, District- Lucknow is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶11

The brief facts of the present case are that an FIR dated 21.02.2026 under Sections 69 BNS, 2023 has been lodged against two named accused persons and other villagers alleging therein that the informant/alleged victim is in relationship with applicant since 2015 and after sometime, applicant has proposed her and from last 11 years, she is living with applicant as husband and wife. On 05.12.2025, applicant has solemnized marriage with one Preeti in place of marrying her. Applicant has sexually assaulted her on false promise of marriage.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the FIR has been lodged on 21.02.2026 after unexplained delay of two and a half months from 05.12.2025 when the alleged marriage of applicant with one Preeti was solemnized.

¶13

It is further submitted that the Police during investigation has not found any whatsapp chat and call recordings details as alleged in the FIR, which are allegedly available with informant/victim.

¶14

BAIL No. 3299 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

It is further submitted that it is an admitted case of the victim herself, who is a major aged about 35 years, that she was having a love relationship with the applicant for last 11 years.

¶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 11 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.

¶19

On the other hand learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer but unable to dispute the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant particularly with regard to the fact that no alleged whatsapp chat or call recordings were recovered by the Police during investigation.

¶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 Gulati (supra) , Biswajyoti Chatterjee (supra) and Samadhan Sitatram Manmothe (supra) , prima facie, it appears that as per the case of the prosecution particularly victim, who is a major lady, that she was in love and physical relationship with the applicant for prolonged period of 11 years and apparently it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical relation was because of alleged promise

¶21

BAIL No. 3299 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

made by the applicant to marry her; FIR has been lodged with an unexplained delay of more than two and a half month from the alleged incident; alleged whatsapp chat or call recordings have not been recovered by the Police during investigation, as has been alleged by the victim in FIR itself, 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 Nitesh Patel 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