Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 166629 (ALL)

RAJNEESH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. CIVIL SECTT. LKO.

/9172/2025 · 2025-09-23

Subhash Vidyarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9172 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Shikhar Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. 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.109 of 2025 under Sections 137(2), 87, 352, 351(3) of B.N.S. registered at Police Station- Sammanpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 27.05.2025 against the applicant and another co-accused person Krishn Kumar, stating that the applicant had enticed away the informant's minor daughter aged 15 years on 21.05.2025. 4. The alleged victim has given an application to the Station House Officer stating that she had gone away from her home on her own and about coming to know about the FIR, she has come to the Police Station. 5. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., she stated that she is aged 18 years and she used to talk to co-accused Krishn Kumar. She had gone with the applicant out of her own free will to Ahmadabad. There she called Krishna and started living with him in Pune and after coming to know about the FIR, she came back. 5. The victim declined to undergo medico-legal examination. 6. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., she stated that she had gone with the applicant to Faizabad thereafter to Delhi by bus and from Delhi to Ahmadabad by Air. She stated that the applicant did not entice her away but she had gone with him out of her own free will but now the applicant has started talking to her cousin and has left her and, therefore, she wants that the applicant should be sent to jail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Santosh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rajneesh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) 7. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is an innocent person having no criminal history and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. 8. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application and he has submitted that allegations have been established during investigation and a charge-sheet has been submitted on 09.09.2025. 9. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the aforesaid statements of the victim coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 17.08.2025 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. 10. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Rajneesh be released on bail in the aforementioned 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/her appearance exempted by the trial Court. September 23, 2025 -Amit K- BAIL No. 9172 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench