Allowed¶20

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

Allahabad HC25 May 2026BAIL/3760/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Manish Kumar, J.), 25.05.2026, BAIL No. 3760 of 2026 — bail granted in false-promise-of-marriage case under Sections 69, 352, 351(3) BNS; consenting adult victim in 2-year relationship; reliance on Deepak Gulati, Biswajyoti Chatterjee, Samadhan Sitatram Manmothe; conditions imposed; observations confined to bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Vikas Kumar to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 43 of 2026 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions including cooperation with prosecution, non-tampering with evidence, non-intimidation of witnesses, and presence before the trial court on each date fixed. ¶20

Vikas Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, involved in Case Crime No. 43 of 2026 under sections 69, 352, 351(3) of the B.N.S., Police Station Jayes, District Amethi, is entitled to enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶10

Court's answer

Prima facie, as per the prosecution case, the victim, a major lady, was in a love and physical relationship with the applicant for a prolonged period of 2 years, and apparently it cannot be said with certainty that the physical relationship was because of the alleged promise made by the applicant to marry her; therefore it is a fit case for enlargement on bail.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The bail application is allowed and the applicant Vikas Kumar is to be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to the enumerated conditions.

¶20

Key takeaways

Since the order relates to enlargement on bail, the observations made in the order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by them.obiter¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — offence under Sections 69, 352, 351(3) B.N.S. (old Sections 375, 504, 506 IPC), P.S. Jayes, District Amethi — allegation of physical relationship established on false promise of marriage — victim a major, aged about 30 years, who according to the prosecution itself was in a love relationship with the applicant for about 2 years and consented to the physical relationship — Court held that prima facie it cannot be said with certainty that the physical relationship was because of the alleged promise to marry — relying on Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (AIR 2013 SC 2071), Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of W.B. (SLP (Crl.) No. 4261 of 2024) and Samadhan Sitatram Manmothe v. State of Maharashtra (AIR Online 2025 SC 1099), bail allowed on personal bond and two sureties with conditions — observations to have no bearing on trial merits.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3760 of 2026

Vikas Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohammad Alishah Faruqi, Mohd Javed Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. 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. 43 of 2026, under sections 69, 352, 351 (3) of the B.N.S. (Old Sections 375, 504, 506 of IPC), Police Station Jayes, District- Amethi is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶11

The brief facts of the present case are that an FIR dated 08.04.2026 under Sections 69, 352, 351 (3) of the B.N.S. (Old Sections 375, 504, 506 of IPC) has been lodged against the applicant alleging therein that after the demise of husband of informant in the year 2024, the applicant being a distant relative used to visit the house of informant and by giving false promise of marriage, he established physical relationship with the informant/victim on several occasions and now he is refusing for marriage.

¶12

It is further submitted that it is an admitted case of the victim herself, who is a major aged about 30 years, that she was having a love relationship with the applicant for last 2 years.

¶13

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, for the last 2 years and

¶14

BAIL No. 3760 of 2026

¶15

¶16

consented to 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.

¶17

It is further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶18

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.

¶19

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 a prolonged period of 2 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, it is a fit case in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.

¶21

Let the applicant Vikas 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:-

¶22

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

¶23

BAIL No. 3760 of 2026

¶24

¶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

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶35

May 25, 2026

¶36

Ashish

¶37

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas 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

Mehtaab Hashmi @ Mehtaab @ Mahtaab vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Subhash Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Karan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

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

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