Allowed¶9

Rajesh Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2026BAIL/34/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted; false promise of marriage; consent from inception; POCSO Act Sections 5L, 6; BNS Section 65(1); Case Crime No. 203/2025; Police Station Jethwara; District Pratapgarh; Rajesh Gupta; personal bond Rs. 25,000/-; two sureties of like amount; Section 183 BNSS statement; Section 313 CrPC in-person presence; jail since 26.09.2025; no criminal history; Apex Court precedents Deepak Gulati, Sonu @ Subhash Kumar, Mandar Deepak Pawar, Amol Bhagwan Nehul; observations no bearing on merits.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement (release on bail) of applicant Rajesh Gupta in Case Crime No. 203/2025 upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties (one of family member/close relative) each of the like amount, subject to the stated conditions of bail. ¶9

Rajesh Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant (Rajesh Gupta) is entitled to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 203/2025 (Sections 65(1) B.N.S.; Sections 5L, 6 POCSO Act, PS Jethwara, District Pratapgarh), the prosecution allegation being that physical relations were established with the victim on the pretext of a false promise of marriage.

¶13

Court's answer

Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, submissions of counsel, the F.I.R., the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred above, the applicant's incarceration since 26.09.2025 and the chances of conviction, this Court found the applicant liable to be allowed and allowed the bail application.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The applicant Rajesh Gupta is to be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties (one of family member/close relative) each of the like amount, subject to enumerated conditions (cooperation with prosecution, no tampering with evidence, no pressurising/intimidating witnesses, no inducement/threat/promise, presence before the trial court on each fixed date personally or through counsel, no adjournment-seeking when witnesses are present, and in-person presence for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.), default being treatable as abuse of liberty of bail.

¶23

Key takeaways

As the 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.obiter¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 13, Saurabh Lavania, J. — Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34 of 2026 (decided January 12, 2026): Bail allowed to Rajesh Gupta in Case Crime No. 203/2025 (S. 65(1) B.N.S.; Ss. 5L, 6 POCSO Act; PS Jethwara, Dist. Pratapgarh), in which the victim alleged that physical relations were established with her on the pretext of a false promise of marriage. Counsel pressed that conviction was unlikely per Apex Court decisions (Deepak Gulati (2013) 7 SCC 675; Sonu @ Subhash Kumar (2021) 7 SCC; Mandar Deepak Pawar 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2110; Amol Bhagwan Nehul 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1230) since, to attract the offence, the consent must flow from a false promise of marriage from inception, which contents the counsel contended were missing from the F.I.R.; counsel further noted the applicant and victim had married (per the victim's statement under S. 183 B.N.S.S.) and that the applicant, with no criminal history, was in jail since 26.09.2025. The AGA and the opposite side opposed but did not dispute these contentions. Considering these factors and the chances of conviction, the Court allowed bail: release on personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two reliable sureties (one family member/close relative) of like amount, subject to conditions including cooperation, non-tampering, no intimidation of witnesses, attendance on trial dates and in person for the S. 313 Cr.P.C. statement; defaults treatable as abuse of bail liberty. The Court clarified that its observations bear no relation to the merits and shall not influence the trial court.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34 of 2026

Rajesh Gupta

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: P.K. Singh Bisen
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 13

¶10

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶11

Vakalatnama filed by Pallavi Mishra, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party No. 2/victim in the Court today is taken on record.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶13

The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 203/2025, under Sections 65(1) B.N.S. and Sections5L, 6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Jethwara, District- Pratapgarh.

¶14

While pressing the present application, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the victim leveling allegations against the applicant to the effect that on the pretext of false promise of marriage the applicant established physical relations with her, lodged an FIR in issue, 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 .

¶15

He also stated 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.

¶16

It is further stated that the applicant and victim have married each other, as appears from the statement of victim herself recorded in terms of Section 183 B.N.S.S.

¶17

It is further submitted that applicant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 26.09.2025. 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.

¶18

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the side opposite opposed the

¶19

BAIL No. 34 of 2026

¶20

¶21

prayer for bail, however, they could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the applicant.

¶22

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 26.09.2025 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 .

¶23

Let the applicant- Rajesh Gupta 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 :-

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶28

(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.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

(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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

January 12, 2026 Arun/-

¶35

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶36

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajesh Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

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

Mohd. Asif vs Km. Neha Mishra Up Ziladhakari Colonelganj Gonda

PNO-962310025 Santosh Kumar Singh vs Shri Prashant Kumar, Director General of Police U.P. Headquarter of D.G.P. Lucknow and Another

Ramgopal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Mohd. Ziauddin Siddiqui and Another vs Sri Ravindra, Prin. Secy. Agri. Marketing and Agri. Foreign Trade Deptt., Lko. and Another

Juvenile X Thru. His Natural Guardian / Father vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another