ASHISH KUMAR YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND ANOTHER
NABAIL/245/2025 · 2025-03-20
Subhash Vidyarthi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 128706 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 128706 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16150 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 245 of 2025 Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sukh Deo Singh,Paritosh Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Paritosh Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Satyendra Kumar Srivastava, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.38 of 2025, under Sections 69, 88, 352, 351(3) BNS, registered at Police Station Lambhua, District Sultanpur. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 30.01.2025 alleging that the applicant used to visit the informant's home and under the allurement of marrying her he repetitively made physical relations with her since the year 2019. The applicant got employed about two years ago and thereafter he declined to marry the informant. During this period the applicant got her pregnancy aborted on two occasions. The year of birth of the informant is mentioned in the F.I.R. as 2001. 4. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 BNSS she reiterated the F.I.R. version. In the medico legal examination report of the informant no mark of injury or sign of
use of force has been found. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail- application it has been contended that the applicant is a 25 years old innocent person, he has no criminal history and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. 6. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter. 7.
Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that even as per the F.I.R. version the informant is aged about 24 years, while the applicant is aged about 25 years and she repetitively made physical relations with the applicant since the year 2019; that the allegation of abortion is not supported by any material except the statement of the informant; that long relations between the applicant and the informant indicate that the relations were consensual; that the applicant's declining to marry the informant can be for several reasons and there is no material which may prima facie establish that since inception the applicant intended to cheat the informant coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and without making any observations which may affect the outcome of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant-Ashish Kumar Yadav before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other
conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court: (i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court' (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. . (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)
Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Ram. Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench