The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to an applicant accused of establishing a physical relationship with a married woman on the false promise of marriage, while emphasizing the victim's refusal to undergo medico-legal examination and the applicant's lack of criminal history. The judgment underscores the court's balanced approach in granting bail under stringent conditions, citing the Supreme Court's guidelines in Kapil Wadhawan v. Central Bureau of Investigation and the High Court's precedent in Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P.
Background & Facts
The Genesis
The applicant, Dharmendra Madhsiya, was arrested on 28.04.2026 in connection with Case Crime No. 242 of 2026 registered at Police Station Ramgarhtal, District Gorakhpur. The FIR alleges that the applicant established a physical relationship with the victim on the false promise of marriage, despite both parties being married individuals.
Key Facts
- The victim, in her statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS and Section 183 BNSS, alleged that the applicant promised marriage to induce her into a physical relationship, resulting in pregnancy.
- The applicant allegedly administered medicines to terminate the pregnancy and continued to maintain a live-in relationship with the victim.
- The victim refused to undergo medico-legal examination, which is a critical piece of evidence in such cases.
- The applicant has been in judicial custody since 28.04.2026 and has no prior criminal history.
Procedural History
- 28.04.2026: Applicant arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
- 2026: Bail application filed before the Allahabad High Court (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23198 of 2026).
- 16.07.2026: High Court pronounced the judgment granting bail.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought bail during the pendency of the trial, subject to stringent conditions to ensure his cooperation and prevent tampering with evidence.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail under Sections 69 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), considering the nature of the offence, the applicant's lack of criminal history, and the victim's refusal to undergo medico-legal examination.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
- The applicant was falsely implicated in the case.
- The victim and the applicant were both married individuals, and the relationship was consensual.
- The applicant has been in custody since 28.04.2026 and has no criminal history.
- The applicant assured that he would cooperate in the trial proceedings and not misuse the liberty of bail.
For the Respondent
- The State opposed the bail application but did not dispute the factual submissions made by the applicant.
- The State emphasized the seriousness of the offence, which involves a breach of trust and false promises, particularly in cases of false promise of marriage.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the following factors:
- The applicant's lack of criminal history and his prolonged incarceration since 28.04.2026.
- The victim's refusal to undergo medico-legal examination, which is a critical piece of evidence in such cases.
- The nature of the offence, which involves a false promise of marriage and breach of trust.
- The Supreme Court's judgment in Kapil Wadhawan v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038), which provides guidelines for granting bail in cases involving false promises of marriage.
- The High Court's precedent in Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P. (2024 SCC Online All 6765), which emphasizes the need for bail in cases where the accused has no criminal history and the offence is not of a grave nature.
The Court observed that while the offence is serious, the applicant's conduct during custody and his lack of criminal history warranted the grant of bail. The Court also noted the overcrowded state of jails and the pendency of criminal cases as additional factors in favor of granting bail.
"Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail."
The Verdict
The Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application. The applicant was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to the following conditions:
- The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
- The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
- The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
- The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him.
- In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
- Identity, status, and residence proof of the applicant and sureties to be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
- Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant as well as sureties should be verified by the court concerned.
- The trial court is directed to send the release order to the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to ensure early release of the applicant.
- A copy of the order is to be sent to the applicant through the concerned Jail Superintendent via email or e-prison portal within 24 hours.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Is Not Automatic in False Promise of Marriage Cases
The judgment clarifies that while false promise of marriage cases are serious, bail is not automatically denied. Courts must consider the applicant's lack of criminal history, the nature of the offence, and the victim's refusal to undergo medico-legal examination as critical factors in granting bail.
Documentary Evidence and Victim's Conduct Matter
- The victim's refusal to undergo medico-legal examination can be a significant factor in bail decisions.
- Courts are increasingly relying on the Supreme Court's guidelines in Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI to balance the rights of the accused with the need for justice in such cases.
- The judgment reinforces the importance of cooperation with the trial process as a condition for granting bail.
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Courts are mandating strict compliance with bail conditions, including verification of identity, status, and residence proof of the applicant and sureties.
- The use of technology, such as the Bail Order Management System (BOMS), is being emphasized to ensure timely release of applicants.
- The judgment highlights the need for timely compliance with court orders to avoid delays in the justice delivery system.
