Suneel Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3507 of 2026

Suneel Kumar

.....Applicant(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nisha Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 13

¶5

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶6

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

¶7

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 103/2026, Under Sections 69, 351 (3) BNS, 2023 (old Section 506 IPC), Police Station - Kothi, District - Barabanki, is seeking enlargement on bail.

¶8

The brief facts of the present case are that an FIR dated 05.04.2026, under Sections 69, 351 (3) BNS, 2023 (old Section 506 IPC) has been lodged against the applicant alleging therein that the informant/victim was talking to the applicant for the last 4-5 years and on the pretext of false promise of marriage, the applicant established physical relations with her and when a long period had passed, the applicant refused to marry her.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the informant/alleged victim has given an affidavit before the Chief Medical Officer/District Hospital, Barabanki stating that she does not want internal medical examination and age determination test. As per the affidavit dated 06.04.2026, she was about 24 years of age in the year 2026 and, therefore, at the time of the alleged incident i.e. about 4-5 years ago, she was major.

¶10

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 4-5 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

¶11

BAIL No. 3507 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

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 .

¶14

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 07.04.2026.

¶15

On the other hand learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer, but he could not dispute the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as the judgments relied upon by him.

¶16

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 victim was in love and physical relationship with the applicant for a prolonged period of 4-5 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, therefore, this court find that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant Suneel Kumar 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:-

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶23

(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.

¶24

BAIL No. 3507 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

(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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

May 15, 2026 DiVYa

¶32

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Suneel Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suneel Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

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

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

Dhiru Awasthi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Vimal Chaurasiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Indrawati vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.