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
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
Petitioner(s)
FAREED
Adv. IMRAN KHAN
Respondent(s)
State of U.P.
Hearing History
Judge: 8-ADJ(Special Judge Sc/St Act)
Disposed
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 23-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 19-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 16-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 12-03-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts