# Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 831
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-22
- **Case number:** J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33358 of 2025
- **Bench:** Dr. Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/neeraj-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-52723
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

accused of an offence under Section 69 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, was entitled
to be released on bail, having regard to the
nature of allegations, the statements of the
victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183
of
the
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, and the applicability of the
offence of sexual intercourse on false promise of
marriage.

Headnotes
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - s.69;
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- ss.180, 183 - Bail - Allegation of
sexual intercourse on false promise of
marriage - Consensual relationship -
Material
inconsistencies
in
victim's
statements - Ingredients of offence not
attracted - Bail granted.

Held:
The victim was admittedly a major and, as per
the F.I.R., was in telephonic contact with the
applicant since the year 2022. The first physical
meeting between the parties took place in the
year 2023. [Paras 3, 7]

A comparison of the F.I.R. allegations with the
statements of the victim recorded under
832 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha
Sanhita
disclosed
material
inconsistencies. While the F.I.R. alleged sexual
assault on the first meeting, the victim in her
statements stated that she was in a relationship
with the applicant for several years, that both
were in love, and that they were living as
husband and wife. [Paras 7-8]

The allegation of threat to make a video viral, as
mentioned in the F.I.R., did not find place in the
statements of the victim recorded under
Sections 180 and 183 of the Code. The long
duration
of
relationship
and
absence
of
insistence for marriage, as emerging from the
victim's own statements, indicated a consensual
relationship, rather than a relationship based on
a false promise of marriage. [Para 8]

On the facts of the case, the Court held that the
ingredients of Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita were not prima facie attracted. Taking
into account the nature of evidence, the
contradictions in the prosecution version, and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, the applicant was held entitled to be
released on bail. [Paras 8-9]

Bail application allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Mahesh
Damu
Khare
v.
State
of
Maharashtra
and
Another,
2024
SCC
OnLine SC 3471 - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

List of Keywords
Bail; False promise of marriage; Consensual
relationship; Material inconsistencies.

Case Arising From
Case Crime No. 195 of 2025, under Sections
69 and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Haldharpur,
District Mau.

Appearance for Parties
For the Applicant: Sri Shailendra Pratap
Subodh, Poonam
For the State : Learned Government Advocate
For the informant: Shri Satendra Kumar

## Text

10 All. Neeraj Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
831
applicability of Section 300(1)
Cr.P.C., is not at all touched by this Court,
since the controversy and ambiguity of law
which has already been referred by Hon'ble
the Apex Court to the larger Bench of Apex
Court vide order dated 11.08.2022 and
answer of the same will be the law of land
which shall give light to the controversy if
so raised in future.

12.
In
sofar
as
the
present
controversy
is
concerned,
without
adjudication of Case No.16559 of 2024,
under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the
proceedings initiated in pursuance of Case
Crime No.918 of 2024 wherein the
applicants have already been summoned
vide order dated 03.03.2025, is redundant
at present since the same shall be
dependent upon the outcome of Case Crime
No.918
of
2024
and
as
such,
cognizance/summoning
order
dated
03.03.2025 along with entire proceedings
of Case No.2045 of 2025 (State Vs. Keshav
@ Kalu and another), arising out of Case
Crime No.918 of 2024, under Section 420,
506 IPC, Police Station Sahar, District
Bulandshahar, pending in the court of
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Bulandshahar, is hereby set aside.

13.
Accordingly,
the
instant
application is allowed.

14. However, it is made clear that
opposite party no.2 will be at liberty to
initiate
proceedings
in
pursuance
of
sections so warranted under the law after
outcome of Case No.16559 of 2024, under
Section 138 N.I. Act which is still pending
to
be
adjudicated
by
learned
court
concerned.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 831
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.09.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY,
J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33358 of
2025

Neeraj Kumar ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ....Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Poonam, Shailendra Pratap Subodh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether, in the facts of the case, the applicant
accused of an offence under Section 69 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, was entitled
to be released on bail, having regard to the
nature of allegations, the statements of the
victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183
of
the
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, and the applicability of the
offence of sexual intercourse on false promise of
marriage.

Headnotes
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - s.69;
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- ss.180, 183 - Bail - Allegation of
sexual intercourse on false promise of
marriage - Consensual relationship -
Material
inconsistencies
in
victim's
statements - Ingredients of offence not
attracted - Bail granted.

Held:
The victim was admittedly a major and, as per
the F.I.R., was in telephonic contact with the
applicant since the year 2022. The first physical
meeting between the parties took place in the
year 2023. [Paras 3, 7]

A comparison of the F.I.R. allegations with the
statements of the victim recorded under
832 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha
Sanhita
disclosed
material
inconsistencies. While the F.I.R. alleged sexual
assault on the first meeting, the victim in her
statements stated that she was in a relationship
with the applicant for several years, that both
were in love, and that they were living as
husband and wife. [Paras 7-8]

The allegation of threat to make a video viral, as
mentioned in the F.I.R., did not find place in the
statements of the victim recorded under
Sections 180 and 183 of the Code. The long
duration
of
relationship
and
absence
of
insistence for marriage, as emerging from the
victim's own statements, indicated a consensual
relationship, rather than a relationship based on
a false promise of marriage. [Para 8]

On the facts of the case, the Court held that the
ingredients of Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita were not prima facie attracted. Taking
into account the nature of evidence, the
contradictions in the prosecution version, and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, the applicant was held entitled to be
released on bail. [Paras 8-9]

Bail application allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Mahesh
Damu
Khare
v.
State
of
Maharashtra
and
Another,
2024
SCC
OnLine SC 3471 - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

List of Keywords
Bail; False promise of marriage; Consensual
relationship; Material inconsistencies.

Case Arising From
Case Crime No. 195 of 2025, under Sections
69 and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Haldharpur,
District Mau.

Appearance for Parties
For the Applicant: Sri Shailendra Pratap
Subodh, Poonam
For the State : Learned Government Advocate
For the informant: Shri Satendra Kumar

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,
J.)

1. Vakalatnama on behalf of the informant
has been filed today in the Court by Sri
Satendra Kumar, learned counsel, is taken on
record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant, learned counsel for the informant, Sri
Chandan Singh learned A.G.A for the State and
perused the record.

3. According to the F.I.R., allegations,
the victim was in telephonic contact with the
applicant since 2022 and the applicant had
assured the victim to marry her. In the year
2023, the applicant called her for the first time
to meet him at Pratap Hotel, where the accusedapplicant had committed rape against her
wishes and also got prepared a video.
Thereafter, on the threatening to viral the video,
the applicant had several times committed rape
upon her at Leelas Hotel. On 10.06.2025 when
the victim asked the applicant to marry, the
applicant abused and refused to marry her.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
has submitted that the victim in the F.I.R. has
alleged that she was in telephonic contact with
the applicant since 2022 and that the applicant
had assured her to marry. Learned counsel
further submitted that for the first time, the
applicant had called to meet her at Pratap Hotel,
where the applicant had committed rape against
her wishes. He further submits that prior to
meeting in the year 2023, there was no meeting
between the applicant and victim and that the
victim, only to make out a case, has alleged in
the F.I.R., that the applicant had promised her
to solemnise marriage. Learned counsel further
argued that the victim in her statement recorded
under Section 180 of B.N.S.S., has averred that
she met with the applicant in the year 2022 and
were in love with each other and the applicant
promised to marry her and also provide
financial assistance to maintain her. It is also
averred that he called her at Pratap Hotel at
10 All. Neeraj Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
833
Belthara Road, where physical relationship was
also established and also vermilion her and
when she asked to marry her, the applicant
refused to marry, whereas the victim in her
statement recorded under Section 183 of
B.N.S.S., has specifically stated that she was in
relationship with the applicant since last four
years and were living as husband and wife,
physical relations were also established but now
the applicant has refused to marry. Learned
counsel also argued that there is a material
contradiction in the statement of the victim
recorded under Section 180 and 183 of
B.N.S.S., as well as in F.I.R. version. He further
contends that the victim is a consenting party
without there being any promise to marry, thus
no offence under Section 69 of B.N.S. is made
out against the applicant. It is thus contended
that the applicant has been falsely implicated in
the present case due to ulterior motive. Several
other submissions in order to demonstrate the
falsity of the allegations made against the
applicant have also been placed before the
Court. The circumstances which, according to
the counsel, led to the false implication of the
accused have also been mentioned. It has also
been assured on behalf of the applicant that he
is ready to cooperate with the process of law
and shall faithfully make himself available
before the court whenever required and is also
ready to accept all the conditions which the
Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He
next submits that applicant is languishing in jail
since 19.07.2025.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well
as learned counsel for the informant have
opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by
contending that the innocence of the applicant
cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore,
he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the
applicant is released on bail he will misuse the
liberty of bail.

6. Before proceeding further, it is
necessary to peruse Section 69 of Bhartiya
Nyaya Sanhita, which is quoted below:-

 " Whoever, by deceitful means or by
making promise to marry a woman without any
intention of fulfilling the same, and has sexual
intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse
not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be
punished
with
imprisonment
of
either
description for a term which may extend to ten
years and shall also be liable to fine."

 Explanation: "deceitful means" shall
include the false promise of employment or
promotion,
inducement
or
marring
after
suppressing identity."

7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of
Mahesh Damu Khare Vs. The State of
Maharastra and another reported in 2024 SCC
On Line SC 3471, has held in paragraph no. 26,
27 and 31 as under:-

 "26. In the present case, the nature
of relationship between the appellant and the
complainant can be characterised by the
following attributes:

 (i)
The
appellant
and
the
complainant were acquainted with each other
since 2008. The complainant herself admits that
the appellant has been in physical relationship
since then till 2017 without protest in spite of
alleging that the appellant had done so without
her consent.

 (ii) The physical relationship was
going on routinely. But the complainant in her
complaint states that after she got a rented
room in Shirvane, Nerul Sector 1, Navi
Mumbai, in December, 2010, the appellant used
to come every day and had sexual intercourse
everyday, though without her consent and by
giving false promise of marriage.

 (iii) The complainant does not
appear to be a naive and gullible woman who
was susceptible to deceit while maintaining
physical relationship with the appellant and the
allegation of false promise surfaced only when
the appellant refused to provide further
financial and other assistance.

 (iv) The conduct of the complainant
clearly shows that she is a mature person
834 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
clearly
capable
of
understanding
the
consequences of her acts and she was fully
aware of the kind of illicit relationship she was
maintaining with a married person.

 (v) The complainant was fully aware
that the appellant was already married and had
two wives, though one of them was not keeping
well.

 27.Thus, from the above it appears
that it is more of an extra-marital affair during
the aforesaid period without any insistence by
the complainant for getting married to the
appellant. The fact that the complainant
continued to have a physical relationship for a
long time without any insistence on marriage
would indicate the unlikelihood of any such
promise made by the appellant for marrying her
and it rather indicates that the relationship was
a consensual one.

 In our opinion, the longer the
duration of the physical relationship between
the partners without protest and insistence by
the female partner for marriage would be
indicative of a consensual relationship rather
than a relationship based on false promise of
marriage by the male partner and thus, based
on misconception of fact.

 (emphasis supplied)

 31. In our view if criminality is to be
attached
to
such
prolonged
physical
relationship at a very belated stage, it can lead
to serious consequences. It will open the scope
for imputing criminality to such long term
relationships after turning sour, as such an
allegation can be made even at a belated stage
to drag a person in the juggernaut of stringent
criminal process. There is always a danger of
attributing criminal intent to an otherwise
disturbed civil relationship of which the Court
must also be mindful."

7. It is borne out from record that the
informant/victim is major. The informant/victim
has averred in the F.I.R., that she was in
telephonic contact with the applicant since
2022, who assured her to marry and for the first
time in the year 2023, the applicant called her to
meet at Pratap Hotel, where the accusedapplicant had committed rape against her
wishes and also prepared a video. Thereafter, on
threatening to viral the video, the applicant had
committed rape several times upon her at Leelas
Hotel and when the victim on 10.06.2025 asked
the applicant to marry, the applicant abused and
refused to marry her. The victim in her
statement recorded under Section 180 of
B.N.S.S., has stated that she met with the
applicant in the year 2022 and both were in love
with each other. The applicant promised to
marry her, who also used to pay her to maintain
herself, whereas in her statement recorded
under Section 183 of B.N.S.S., she has stated
that she was in relationship with the applicant
for the last four years and were living as
husband and wife now he refused to marry.

8. Taking into consideration the F.I.R.
averments, it is borne out that the victim was in
telephonic conversation with the applicant since
2022 and for the first time in the year 2023
when she met with the applicant at Pratap
Hotel, she was raped by the applicant against
her wishes and therefore, there was no promise
to marry furthermore, the applicant was
threatening to viral the video but there is no
whisper about the threatening to viral the video
either in her statement recorded under Sections
180 and 183 of B.N.S.S. In her statement
recorded under Section 180 of B.N.S.S., she has
stated that both were in love with each other,
who also used to provide financial assistance to
maintain her and the applicant had promised to
marry her but in her statement recorded under
Section 183 of B.N.S.S., she has stated that she
was in relationship with the applicant for the
last four years and were living as husband and
wife, which also demonstrate that prior to
establishing physical relationship, there is no
averment of promise to marry in her statement
recorded under Section 183 of B.N.S.S. It is
also
evident
that
there
is
material
inconsistencies in the statement of the victim
recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of
B.NS.S. as well F.I.R., averments. It appears
that physical relationship between the applicant
10 All. Smt. Ramwati Vs. State of U.P.
835
and the victim was without protest and
there was no insistence by victim for marriage
as she was in relationship with the applicant for
the last four years as has been averred in her
statement recorded under Section 183 of
B.N.S.S., which indicates the consensual
relationship between the two rather than a
relationship based on false promise of marriage
by
the
applicant.
The
consent
of
the
informant/victim is also evident from the fact
that she met the applicant in a public place i.e.
hotel. Had she been forced to establish physical
relation by the applicant, she would have ample
opportunity to raise alarm. That is not the case
here. In view of the foregoing discussion, this
Court is of the opinion that ingredients of
Section 69 of B.N.S.S., is not attracted in the
present case.

8. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, submissions of
learned counsel for the parties, nature of
evidence
and
all
attending
facts
and
circumstances of the case, without expressing
any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is
of the view that the applicant has made out a
case for bail. Hence the bail application is
allowed.

9. Let applicant Neeraj Kumar
involved in Case Crime No.195 of 2025 under
Sections 69, 352 B.N.S., Police Station
Haldharpur, District Mau be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond and two local heavy
sureties each of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the
following conditions:-

 i) The applicant shall not tamper
with the prosecution evidence.
 ii) The applicant shall not threaten or
harass the prosecution witnesses.

 iii) The applicant shall appear on the
date fixed by the trial court.

 iv) The applicant shall not commit an
offence similar to the offence of which the
applicant is accused, or suspected of the
commission.
 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 such person from
disclosing facts to the Court or to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence.

10. In case of breach of any of the
above condition, the trial Court shall be at
liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in
accordance with law.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 835
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33635 of
2025

Smt. Ramwati ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ....Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Gaurav Singh Tomar

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Rahul Mishra, Sanjay Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Whether the applicant, mother-in-law of the
deceased, accused of offences under Sections
80(2), 85 and 92 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, was entitled to be enlarged on
bail, in view of the nature of allegations, the
ocular testimony of an eye-witness child,
medical
evidence,
statutory
presumption
relating to dowry death, and the stage of trial.

Headnotes
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - ss.80(2),
85, 92 - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,
2023 - s.118 - Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 - ss.3, 4 - Bail - Dowry death -