Sandeep vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 426 of 2026

¶3

Sandeep

¶4

.....Applicant(s) Versus

¶5

State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Saurabh Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 13

¶7

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶8

On a query being put, the learned AGA submitted that he has complete instructions in the matter and is ready to argue the case on merits, as such the Court proceeded to hear the instant application seeking bail on merits.

¶9

The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 241 of 2025, under Sections- 69, 115(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Jaitpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar.

¶10

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 .

¶11

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.

¶12

It is further submitted that applicant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 28.11.2025. 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.

¶13

BAIL No. 426 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail, however he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the applicant.

¶16

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 28.11.2025 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 .

¶17

Let the applicant- Sandeep 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 :-

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶22

(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.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶29

January 27, 2026 Preeti

¶30

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sandeep v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Sunita Gautam @ Nasreen vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohit Kumar @ Kaka vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Arjun Bhargava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Juvenile Delinquent v Thru. His Father X vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Mohammad Yasin vs Sri Upendra Gupta Basic Shiksha Adhikari Distt. Sultanpur and Another

Dilshad Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lucknow and Another