Allahabad High Court
Kalpit Bhardwaj vs State Of U.P. on 29 May, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:92718
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4280 of 2025
Applicant :- Kalpit Bhardwaj
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Narayan Singh,Sr. Advocate,Utkarsh Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Utkarsh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Praveen Pathak, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0196 of 2025, under Section 69 of BNS, Police Station - Sector 113, District - Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have established corporeal relationship with the victim on the false promise of marriage by contacting her on a marriage website but later on refused to comply with the said promise. Subsequent to it, the applicant is stated to have again established corporeal relationship with her after fleecing and fooling her.
5. It is alleged that on 07.01.2025, he had even taken Rs. 2 lakhs cash from her. The applicant had established corporeal relationship with the victim several times and promised three times to solemnize marriage with her and had fallen back from the said promise of marriage, as such, the instant FIR has been lodged.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has apprehension of his arrest. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. The FIR is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
7. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that the case of consensual relationship has been converted into a criminal one by the informant as the relationship has been gone awry. It is also stated that the victim is major and is working in a very reputed multi-national company. The applicant and the victim both are major. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the applicant is an imposter and he has fleeced & fooled several other ladies in addition to the victim. The applicant has deleted his instagram account and even changed his mobile numbers several times so that evidence could not be retrieved against him.
9. Learned counsel for the informant has also stated that the applicant had lured the victim and taken Rs. 2 lakhs from her which she had withdrawn from her bank account on 07.01.2025. The applicant has misused his clout and befooled the victim several times, as such, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
10. Learned AGA has also also opposed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant but could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.
11. The Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2019 (9) SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886, has stated that entering into any kind of corporeal relationship with a person on the false promise to marry cannot be termed as rape.
12. This Court has avoided expressing its opinion as the case hinges on whether the applicant's promise of marriage was genuine or false and whether the physical relationship was consensual or not. It is for the Trial Court to draw a conclusion which will depend on the evidence presented before it and its interpretation as per law.
13. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant and also considering the fact that the victim is major aged about 25 years old and the relationship between the two has been made since 2022, I find it a fit case to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court.
14. Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.
15. In the event of arrest of the applicant, Kalpit Bhardwaj, involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-
i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
ii. that 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;
iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;
iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.
17. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date:- 29.5.2025
Siddhant
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
