FAREED vs State of U.P. — 449/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 319(2),316(2),69,115(2),351,352. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 25th March 2026.

Bail Application

CNR: UPBG010012312026

Case disposed

Filing Number

1180/2026

Filing Date

25-02-2026

Registration No

449/2026

Registration Date

25-02-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

8-ADJ(Special Judge Sc/St Act)

Decision Date

25th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

FIR Details

FIR Number

27

Police Station

BARAUT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 319(2),316(2),69,115(2),351,352
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Section 3(2)(5)

Petitioner(s)

FAREED

Adv. IMRAN KHAN

Respondent(s)

State of U.P.

Hearing History

Judge: 8-ADJ(Special Judge Sc/St Act)

25-03-2026

Disposed

23-03-2026

Hearing

19-03-2026

Hearing

16-03-2026

Hearing

12-03-2026

Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

25-03-2026
Copy of Order

Case Summary: 449/2026 - Fareed v. State of U.P. The court granted bail to accused Fareed in a second bail application (dated 25.03.2026) involving charges under IPC sections 319(2), 316(2), 69, 115(2), 351, 352 and SC/ST Act section 3(2)(v). The court found that the complainant and accused had been in a consensual live-in relationship since 2023, with evidence showing mutual understanding and court marriage plans. Citing Supreme Court precedent that "prolonged period of relationship during which sexual relations continued is sufficient to conclude there was never an element of force or deceit," the court rejected claims of marriage deception and exploitation, noting the complainant was a mature 23-year-old woman capable of sound judgment. Bail was granted on ₹50,000 personal bond with conditions prohibiting contact with the complainant and social media harassment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 449/2026 - Fareed v. State of U.P. The court granted bail to accused Fareed in a second bail application (dated 25.03.2026) involving charges under IPC sections 319(2), 316(2), 69, 115(2), 351, 352 and SC/ST Act section 3(2)(v). The court found that the complainant and accused had been in a consensual live-in relationship since 2023, with evidence showing mutual understanding and court marriage plans. Citing Supreme Court precedent that "prolonged period of relationship during which sexual relations continued is sufficient to conclude there was never an element of force or deceit," the court rejected claims of marriage deception and exploitation, noting the complainant was a mature 23-year-old woman capable of sound judgment. Bail was granted on ₹50,000 personal bond with conditions prohibiting contact with the complainant and social media harassment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District and Session Judge All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case