2026:UHC:1026 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/1757/2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Shariq Khurshid, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. J.P. Kandpal and Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief Holders for the State. 3. Applicant – Sukhvinder Singh alias Sukhha, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 97 of 2025, registered under Sections 69 of B.N.S., at Police Station Dineshpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R. itself discloses that the relationship between the applicant and the complainant commenced in the year 2018 on the alleged promise of marriage and continued till 04.06.2025, i.e., for a period of more than seven years. It is contended that during this prolonged period both parties remained in a relationship out of their own volition and there is no allegation of force, coercion or any immediate inducement at any particular point of time. The grievance, as emerging from the F.I.R., is essentially that the applicant has now refused to solemnize marriage. 6. Learned counsel further submits that even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are taken at their face value, the 2026:UHC:1026 admitted factual matrix reflects a consensual relationship between two major individuals. It is pointed out that at present the applicant is about 23 years of age and the complainant is about 25 years of age, and there is nothing on record to indicate that at the relevant point of time either of them was a minor; that, the long duration of the relationship prima facie suggests a voluntary association arising out of a love affair, and the question as to whether the promise of marriage was false from inception or subsequently could not be fulfilled is a matter of evidence to be tested during trial. 7. It is also submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated; that he is in judicial custody since 08.08.2025; that he has no previous criminal antecedents; that his earlier bail application has been rejected by the court below vide order dated 10.09.2025; and that he is a young person whose continued incarceration is likely to adversely affect his future prospects. It is further contended that the trial is likely to take considerable time for conclusion. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the applicant. However, he does not dispute that the applicant is in custody since 08.08.2025 and that his bail application has been rejected by the court below on 10.09.2025. 9. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that the F.I.R. 2026:UHC:1026 itself discloses a prolonged relationship of more than seven years between the parties. At this stage, there is no specific material to prima facie demonstrate that the alleged promise of marriage was false from the very inception so as to vitiate consent. The circumstances, as presently borne out from the record, indicate that the relationship was continuing and consensual in nature between two adults. Whether the refusal to marry subsequently would attract penal consequences is a matter to be adjudicated upon evidence during trial. 10. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and keeping in view the settled principles governing grant of bail, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case for enlargement on bail. 11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Alok Mahra, J.) 17.02.2026 Mamta