Sachin Kumar Singh Alias Sachin Suryavanshi Alias Sonu v. State of U.P

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6278 of 2025

Court No. - 65 (Sl. No. 141 out of 310) HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶1List has been revised. Second counter affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the informant is taken on record.

¶2Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abhisht Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashank Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

¶3Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 350 of 2024, under Sections 308(7), 303, 115(2), 119(1), 127(2), 61(1), 125(2), 351(2)(3), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 89 & 64 of BNS and Section 67A of I.T. Act, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Budaun, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

¶4The prosecution case, as borne out from the FIR, is that the victim, a young woman aged about 25 years, came in contact with the applicant, namely Sachin Kumar Singh @ Sachin Suryavanshi @ Sonu Verma @ Surya, through social media in May, 2021. It is alleged that the accused persistently approached the victim by sending friend requests from multiple mobile numbers and, upon establishing contact, created a fake social media profile in the name of "Kirti Kumari" to conceal his true identity and marital status. By adopting deceitful means and extending false assurance of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhisht Jaiswal, Ali Hasan, Istiyaq Ali, Kamesh Kumar Arya, Pranav Tiwary Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pankaj Kumar, Shivam Kumar Sachin Kumar Singh Alias Sachin Suryavanshi Alias Sonu .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) marriage, the accused is stated to have gained the confidence of the victim as well as her family members.

¶5It is further alleged that the accused, by exerting emotional pressure and issuing threats, compelled the victim to participate in a purported marriage ceremony, which was a sham, followed by fraudulent registration of marriage before the Sub-Registrar by misrepresentation of facts. Thereafter, the accused allegedly established physical relations with the victim against her will and recorded objectionable photographs and videos, which were subsequently used to blackmail and coerce her.

¶6The prosecution further alleges that the victim was forced to part with substantial amounts of money, jewellery, and other valuables. It is also alleged that the applicant, along with his family members, subjected the victim to physical and mental cruelty, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation. The victim has further alleged continuous harassment, including threats to her life, attempts to defame her through social media, and acts of violence, ultimately leading to her escape and return to her parental home. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

¶7The story is that the applicant and the victim came into contact through Facebook, whereafter a consensual corporeal association developed between them, and both decided to convert it into a marital relationship. It is contended that the said marriage was duly registered before the Registrar of Marriages at Budaun. However, owing to subsequent discord and deterioration in their relationship, the present FIR has been instituted as a consequence of the soured relationship.

¶8The FIR was lodged on 27.09.2024 at about 03:29 PM in respect of alleged incidents spanning from 04.12.2021 to 23.09.2024, which indicates an inordinate delay and creates doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution case.

¶9The allegations levelled in the FIR are per se false and unsubstantiated, inasmuch as no incriminating or objectionable photographs or videos have been recovered from the possession of the applicant.

¶10The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences.

¶11The victim is major, aged about 25 years, and thus there was no occasion for the applicant to have lured, deceived, or exploited her in the manner alleged.

¶12The marriage certificate issued in favour of the parties was subsequently cancelled by the Registrar of Marriages ex parte on technical grounds, which creates inconsistency in the prosecution case, particularly in light of the simultaneous allegations of dowry demand.

¶13There exists a concerted conspiracy involving certain persons, namely Shruti Rathi, Parul Gupta, and the informant, whereby the applicant has been falsely implicated in one more case.

¶14The victim has admitted to having cohabited with the applicant, and that she, in collusion with the said individuals, has instituted successive complaints against the applicant.

¶15Criminal history attributed to the applicant has been duly explained in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.

¶16The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.10.2024, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE:

¶17The bail application has been vehemently opposed by contending that the applicant has misused his clout and adopted a calculated modus operandi of luring innocent and vulnerable young women into relationships through social media platforms.

¶18The applicant was already married to one Swati Verma, and the said marriage is still subsisting. Despite this, during the continuance of his first marriage, the applicant is alleged to have entered into a registered marriage with the victim, thereby acting deceitfully.

¶19The applicant had taken indecent photographs and videos of the victim, which have been handed over to the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.

¶20The applicant has similarly exploited other women, namely Parul Gupta and Shruti Rathi, thereby indicating a pattern of conduct, lending credence to the allegations levelled by the victim. CONCLUSION:

¶21Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the modus operandi of the applicant seems to be of luring innocent women into relationship as is evident from the instant case and the FIR No. 0347 of 2024, u/s 376, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 67A of I.T. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District - Budaun lodged by another women, Shruti Rathi against the applicant, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

¶22The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

¶23However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

¶24It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. March 23, 2026 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad