DEEP SINGH @ DEEPAK v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. U.O. LKO.
BAIL/3859/2025 · 2025-05-06
Subhash Vidyarthi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 138571 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 138571 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26167 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3859 of 2025 Applicant :- Deep Singh @ Deepak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.O. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Durgesh Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Durgesh Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Nikita Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the records. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.0382 of 2024, under Sections 87, 142, 143 and 64 B.N.S., Section 6/5L POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, registered at Police Station Hardi, District Bahraich. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 22.10.2024, stating that one Chhotu had enticed away the informant's daughter aged 16 years at about 3 p.m. on 09.10.2024. 4. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., she stated that she had gone away from her home about a month ago. She went to Bahraich by bus where she met with a person whose name she does not know. She stayed about 15 days at the house of elder sister of that person and he got her married to one Jasveer and thereafter she lived as wife of Jasveer. 5. In the additional statement of the informant, she stated that
the applicant had sold away her daughter and this informant had been given by the victim herself to the wife of her husband's elder brother. 6. The medico legal examination report of the victim does not mention any mark of injury or sign of use of force. 7. In the radiological examination the age of the victim has been opined to be between 16-17 years. 8. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., she stated that she used to talk to Chhotu for one year; Chhotu had called her by making a phone call about a month ago. She went to Lucknow where she met a person who took her to his sister's place for working there. She went to Lakhimpur with that person and stayed at his sister's house for 15 days. She categorically stated that the person, who took her, and his sister did not commit any misdeed against her.
However, sister of that person had got her married to Jasveer with her consent. 9. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history. 10. The learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the bail application and she has submitted that victim is a minor. The allegation against the applicant is of selling a minor girl which is a heinous offence and the same has been established during investigation and a charge-sheet has been submitted on
04.02.205. 11. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant is not named either in the FIR or in the statement of the informant
recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S.; that although the informant has stated that the applicant had sold away the victim in her additional statement and she had said the source of this information to the victim herself; that the victim has not stated so in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S.; that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 26.11.2024, whereas the investigation already stands concluded, I am of the view that the aforesaid
facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.
12. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.
13. Let the applicant- Deep Singh alias Deepak be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal 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 tamper 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, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court. [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]
Order Date :- 6.5.2025 MVS/- Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench