Rohit Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3685 of 2026

Rohit Kumar Verma

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bhupendra Nath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 13

¶7

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶8

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

¶9

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 0131 of 2025, Under Sections 69, 351(2) BNS, 2023 (old Sections 506 IPC) and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Madiyaon, DistrictLucknow North (Commissionerate, Lucknow), is seeking enlargement on bail.

¶10

The brief facts of the present case are that an FIR dated 22.03.2026, under Sections 69, 351(2) BNS, 2023 (old Sections 506 IPC) and Section 3/4 D.P Act, has been lodged against four named accused persons including the applicant alleging therein that the applicant had been establishing physical relationship with the informant/victim from last two years on the pretext of false promise of marriage. It is further alleged that initially, the victim/informant was told that the marriage will be solemnised after the completion of the construction of the house. After the completion of the construction work of the house, when the informant/victim asked for the marriage, the named accused persons demanded Rs. 5 lakhs cash and a four-wheeler, as dowry. The applicant has also threatened her that if the informant/victim will pressurize him any further, he will viral the obscene videos and photographs of the victim/informant on the social media.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the police, after the investigation, has filed the chargesheet and dropped section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and has also dropped the names of other three named coaccused and the said chargesheet has been filed only under Sections 69 and 351(2) B.N.S. No video or photographs of the victim/informant has been filed/attached with the chargesheet. It is an admitted case of the informant that

¶12

BAIL No. 3685 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

she is 25 years of age and she is alleging relationship from last two years from the date of lodging of the F.I.R i.e. 22.03.2026, meaning thereby that even at that time, the victim/informant was major and 23 years of age.

¶15

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 two 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.

¶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 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 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 Rohit Kumar Verma 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

BAIL No. 3685 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶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 21, 2026 DiVYa

¶34

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶35

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

Rohit Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. 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

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

Mohd. Sameem @ Raja vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Indresh Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Bhagelu @ Bhagwat Prasad and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secretariat Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Taslim vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin./ Addl. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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