2026:UHC:1147 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/1875/2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Abhishek Singh Rawat, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Applicant – Mustafa, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 166 of 2025, registered under Sections 376 of I.P.C. and 351(3), 352 of B.N.S., at Police Station Sitarganj District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R. was lodged alleging that the applicant established physical relations with the complainant on the false promise of marriage. During investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet under Section 376 I.P.C. and Sections 351(3) and 352 B.N.S. 6. It is contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. As per the F.I.R. itself, the applicant and the complainant were known to each other for the last about six to seven years; that, both are major as the applicant is aged about 26 years and the complainant about 21 years. It is submitted that any relationship between them was consensual; that, yhe F.I.R. was allegedly lodged only after the 2026:UHC:1147 applicant’s engagement had been fixed elsewhere, and it is further submitted that the said engagement was also broken subsequent to the lodging of the F.I.R. at the instance of the complainant. 7. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer has indicated that the alleged offence under Section 376 I.P.C. pertains to a period prior to enforcement of the B.N.S., whereas the alleged offences under Sections 351(3) and 352 B.N.S. relate to the subsequent period. 8. Learned counsel also submits that a compromise deed was executed between the parties, wherein it was stated that both were major, were in a friendly relationship and used to talk on phone. It is stated that although the applicant had promised to marry the complainant, he later refused, leading to lodging of the F.I.R. It is further alleged that the matter was settled in the presence of respectable persons of society and that a sum of ₹90,000/- was paid to the complainant. A copy of the compromise was also submitted at Kotwali Sitarganj. 9. It is argued that the applicant is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar and there is no likelihood of his absconding; that, the charge-sheet has already been filed; therefore, there is no possibility of tampering with evidence; that, the applicant is in custody since 21.07.2025; that, his bail application was rejected by the court below vide order dated 15.09.2025. It is submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude and prolonged incarceration would adversely affect the future of the applicant. 2026:UHC:1147 10. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application on the ground that serious allegations have been made against the applicant. However, he does not dispute that the applicant is in custody since 21.07.2025 and that the earlier bail application was rejected on 15.09.2025. 11. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the record, this Court finds that the F.I.R. itself reflects a long-standing relationship between the parties extending over several years. At this stage, there is no clear material to prima facie show that the alleged promise of marriage was false from the very beginning so as to negate consent. The record presently indicates that the relationship was between two consenting adults; that, whether the subsequent refusal to marry constitutes an offence is a matter to be examined during trial on the basis of evidence. 12. Considering the nature of allegations, the period of custody, filing of charge-sheet, absence of criminal history brought on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. 13. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond along with two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Alok Mahra, J.) 20.02.2026 Mamta 2026:UHC:1147