In a bail decision rendered on June 24, 2025, the Allahabad High Court, granted bail to an accused incarcerated under serious charges, including rape on the pretext of marriage, observing that the “larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India” and systemic issues like undertrial overcrowding in prisons merit consideration. The Court, while acknowledging the societal and legal complexities around live-in relationships, emphasized the legal principle of presumption of innocence and the right to personal liberty.
The applicant, Shane Alam, was arrested on charges under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1), 61(2), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The prosecution alleges that he entered into a relationship with the prosecutrix on a false promise of marriage and subsequently refused to marry her, despite their having travelled together to several locations.
The counsel for the applicant, Satish Chandra Singh, submitted that the applicant has no prior criminal history and has been in judicial custody since February 22, 2025. It was argued that the allegations emerge from a consensual relationship now transformed into a criminal charge following a fallout. Opposing the bail plea, the A.G.A. relied on the gravity of the offence. Additionally, Smt. Madhu Yadav, counsel for the informant, contended that “the applicant has committed the offence which will exploit the entire life of the victim since no one is marry her.”
The Court made notable remarks on the sociological and legal implications of live-in relationships in Indian society. The Court observed, “After live-in-relationship has been legalized by the Apex Court, the Court had fed up such cases. These cases are coming to the Court because the concept of live-in-relationship is against the settled law in the Indian Middle Class Society.”
The Court further stated, “The concept of live-in-relationship goes against the interest of the women since a man can marry even after live-in-relationship a woman or number of women but it is difficult for the women to find a life partner after a breakup.” The Bench remarked on the growing incidence of such disputes among the younger generation, observing that “the concept of live-in-relationship has attracted the young generation allot but its after affects are seeing in the case like the present case.”
In support of the bail application, the Court also referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr., and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement. Additionally, the Court noted the serious issue of “5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials.”
Finding merit in the arguments advanced by the applicant and without entering into the merits of the allegations, the Court allowed the bail application. The Court directed that Shane Alam be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to verification of sureties.
A set of stringent conditions were imposed to ensure procedural compliance and prevent misuse of liberty. Among others, the applicant was directed not to tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses, to remain present during key stages of trial, and to refrain from seeking adjournments when evidence is to be recorded. The Court cautioned that any violation of the stipulated conditions would attract proceedings under relevant penal provisions, including Sections 229-A and 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Case Title: Shane Alam Vs. State Of U.P. and Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 19278 of 2025
Coram: Justice Siddharth
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Satish Chandra Singh
Read Order @ Lateslaws.com
Picture Source :
