Allowed

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

Allahabad HC15 May 2026BAIL/3516/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 69 BNS for alleged physical relations on a false promise of marriage. Court noted the two-and-a-half-year consensual relationship and that relations predated any promise of marriage, and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, with conditions to cooperate at trial, not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses, and appear before trial court.

Vimal Chaurasiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3516 of 2026

¶3

Vimal Chaurasiya

¶4

.....Applicant(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anurag Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 13

¶6

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶7

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

¶8

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 90 of 2026, Under Sections 69, BNS, 2023, Police Station - Asandra, District - Barabanki, is seeking enlargement on bail.

¶9

The brief facts of the case are that an FIR dated 08.03.2026 has been lodged under Section 69 BNS against the applicant, alleging therein that the informant/victim is in a relationship with the applicant for the last about two and a half years and during this period, the applicant established physical relations with her by giving false promise of marriage and now he is not ready to marry the informant/victim.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the victim is about 20 years of age and as per the admitted relationship of two and a half years, she was about 18 years of age at the beginning of the relationship and was major at the relevant time.

¶11

It is further submitted that the victim, in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, has stated that before the alleged false promise of marriage, the applicant and the informant were already in physical relationship. It is submitted that once it is an admitted case that prior to the alleged promise of marriage, both were already having physical relations, then no offence under Section 69 BNS is made out against the applicant.

¶12

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

¶13

BAIL No. 3516 of 2026

¶14

¶15

per the admitted case of the prosecution, from last two and a half 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 .

¶16

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 07.11.2025.

¶17

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.

¶18

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 two and a half years and as per her own statement that physical relation was established prior to any promise of marriage; 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 finds that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant Vimal Chaurasiya 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:-

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

BAIL No. 3516 of 2026

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶27

(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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

(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.

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

May 15, 2026 DiVYa

¶34

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶35

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

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.

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

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