Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 137493 (ALL)

SANTRAM v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND 3 OTHERS

BAIL/3661/2025 · 2025-05-01

Subhash Vidyarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25005 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3661 of 2025 Applicant :- Santram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Pandey,Brijendra Singh,Girish Kumar Pande Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Prashant Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anshuman Verma, learned AGA and perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 191 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376D IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur Kheri. 3. The aforesaid case has been filed on the basis of an FIR lodged on 22.04.2021 against the applicant alleging that he had enticed away the informant's daughter on 21.04.2021 at about 08.00 a.m. 4. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she stated that she had gone away for her home because she was angry due to scolding by her family members. In her statement recorded on 24.05.2021 under 164 Cr.P.C., she implicated the applicant and another person Pratap had forcibly taken her away to Bagauri, both of them had committed a misdeed with her and left her at the house of mausi of Sant Ram. 5. Copies of the statements of the informant and the victim recorded by the trial court have been annexed with the application. The victim has stated that she was in friendship with the applicant for the past four years and both of them wanted to marry each other. 6. In the medico legal examination report of the victim no visible injury has been found on any part of her body and no evidence of use of force has been found. 7. As per the medico legal examination report her age has been opined to be 18 to 20 years. 8. Co-accused Pratap @ Ram Pratap has already been granted bail by means of an order dated 05.04.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.13064 of 2021. 9. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view that the FIR has been lodged against the applicant only, but in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she implicated another person also and in her statement recorded before the trial court she has stated that she is in friendship with the applicant for the past four years and she wanted to marry him, that in the medico legal examination report no injury or sign of use of force has been found on any part of the body of the victim, coupled with the facts that the applicant has no previous criminal history, he is languishing in jail since 26.05.2021 whereas a co-accused has been granted bail and without making any observation which may affect the merit of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 10. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant Santram be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime on furnishing a bail bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not temper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. . [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] Order Date :- 1.5.2025 -Amit K- Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench