TEJPAL v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND 3 OTHERS
BAIL/6915/2025 · 2025-07-29
Karunesh Singh Pawar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 153719 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 153719 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43753 Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6915 of 2025 Applicant :- Tejpal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Agnihotri,Uday Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. No one has appeared on behalf of the complainant, although, as per the instructions of the learned A.G.A., notice has been duly served upon the complainant. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 17.05.2025 at around 3:00 p.m., while the informant’s 17-year-old daughter was at home, the applicant allegedly dragged her by holding her hand. When she resisted, he is said to have assaulted her and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident to anyone.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to ulterior motives. It is further submitted that the alleged incident never took place and the prosecution version is completely false, fabricated, and lacking in specific details. The applicant is in custody since 19.05.2025 and has no previous criminal record. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 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.
Upon due consideration of the fact that the victim’s statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS reflects improvements; the version in the FIR is not corroborated by the medical report; the charge sheet has already been filed and the applicant is in jail since 19.05.2025 with no prior criminal antecedents, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Tejpal involved in Case Crime/FIR No.
188/2025, U/s 74, 115(2), 352, 351 Β.Ν.S. & 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station - Neemgaon, District - Lakhimpur Kheri, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) 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. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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. (v) 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 in accordance with law. (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such
proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present anticipatory bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.
Order Date :- 29.7.2025 R.C. Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench