Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42716 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6678 of 2025 Applicant :- Ranjeet Kumar Yadav @ Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Singh Parihar,Amod Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mukesh Kuamr Singh learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 3.4.2025 in Case Crime No. 142 of 2025 u/s 69, 351(2) BNS, P.S. Lalganj, District Bareli.It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. 3. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 15.3.2025 but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 30.3.2025 without explaining the inordinate delay. In the F.I.R. the allegation has been levelled against the present applicant as he is the sole accused. As per prosecution story and the statement of the prosecutrix recorded u/s 183 BNSS she has herself admitted that the present applicant is a married person and before his marriage he did not establish any physical relation with her, however, after his marriage he assured the prosecutrix that he will marry her after deserting his wife. The applicant established physical relation with the prosecutrix on the pretext of false promise of marriage as many as 34 times. 4. Learned counsel has stated that the prosecution story is prima-facie not acceptable inasmuch as when the prosecutrix has herself stated that the applicant is a married person and before his marriage he has not established physical relation with her then the ingredients of section 69 BNS would not be applicable in this case, however, this fact may be tested during the course of trial. The applicant has no criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Charge-sheet has been filed in this case. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted. 6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. 7. Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that the date of incident has been indicated as 15.3.2025 but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 30.3.2025 without explaining the inordinate delay, in the F.I.R. the allegation has been levelled against the present applicant as he is the sole accused, as per prosecution story and the statement of the prosecutrix recorded u/s 183 BNSS she has herself admitted that the present applicant is a married person and before his marriage he did not establish any physical relation with her, the prosecution story is prima-facie not acceptable inasmuch as when the prosecutrix has herself stated that the applicant is a married person and before his marriage he has not established physical relation with her then the ingredients of section 69 BNS would not be applicable in this case, applicant has no criminal history of any kind whatsoever, charge-sheet has been filed in this case and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant Ranjeet Kumar Yadav @ Rahul, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he / she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him / her under Section 269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 may be issued and if the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him / her in accordance with law, under Section 208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him / her in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall not leave the country (India) without prior permission of the Court. . (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Om Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench