HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22617 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Srawan Kumar Swarnkar, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 128 of 2026, under Sections 69, 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station- Gambhirpur, District- Azamgarh, during the pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The first information report has been lodged belatedly. The applicant and the informant/ victim were in consensual relationship for considerable period of time. The consensual sexual relationship which if continued between the parties for considerable period of time could not be said to have continued under the 'misconception of fact' under Section 28 of the B.N.S. and could not be said to be 'sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means' under Section 69 of B.N.S. The applicant never made any promise to marry the victim. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 26.05.2026 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pawan Kumar Shukla, Rajesh Kumar Gautam Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dhirendra Kumar Verma, G.A., Srawan Kumar Swarnkar Pravesh Kumar Alias Golu .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the consensual sexual relationship which if continued between the parties for considerable period of time could not be said to have continued under the 'misconception of fact' under Section 28 of B.N.S. and could not be said to be 'sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means' under Section 69 of B.N.S. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than three months and after submission of charge sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant- Pravesh Kumar alias Golu, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. September 8, 2026 Abhishek BAIL No. 22617 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma, J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad