Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39168 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13233 of 2024 Applicant :- Abhishek Yadav @ Ballu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Yadava,Aditya Singh,Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pragati Tiwari,Yugal Kishor Tripathi Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State but none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2 despite the fact that notice has already been served upon opposite party no. 2, however, name of Ms. Pragati Tiwari and Sri Yugal Kishor Tripathi has been printed in the cause list. 2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 12.9.2024 in F.I.R. No. 216 of 2024 u/s 363, 366, 376 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Leelapur, District Pratapgarh. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is in affairs with the prosecutrix and as per their understanding that they have attained the marriageable age they got married and started living together as husband and wife. Since the mother of the prosecutrix was not agreeable to the marriage, therefore, she lodged the F.I.R. 4. Attention has been drawn towards the rejoinder affidavit filed on 21.3.2025 wherein the deponent who is the prosecutrix has categorically stated that the deponent / prosecutrix is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and they got married with free-will and consent at one temple at Delhi. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that initially the prosecutrix was living at Nari Niketan, Varanasi but after attaining the marriageable age she started living with her in-laws. Further, attention has been drawn towards supplementary affidavit dated 19.1.2025 showing the examination and cross-examination of the prosecutrix as P.W.-1 wherein she has stated that when she got married with the applicant she was major and the allegation against the present applicant are false and misconceived. The present applicant is having no criminal history of any kind whatsoever. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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 applicant is in affairs with the prosecutrix, in the rejoinder affidavit filed on 21.3.2025 the deponent is the prosecutrix and therein she has categorically stated that the deponent / prosecutrix is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and they got married with free-will and consent at one temple at Delhi, initially the prosecutrix was living at Nari Niketan, Varanasi but after attaining the marriageable age she started living with her in-laws, in the supplementary affidavit dated 19.1.2025 showing the examination and cross-examination of the prosecutrix as P.W.-1 she has stated that when she got married with the applicant she was major and the allegation against the present applicant are false and misconceived, applicant is having no criminal history of any kind whatsoever 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. 9. Bail application is allowed. 10. 9. Bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant Abhishek Yadav @ Ballu, 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 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 under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) 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.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, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (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 313 Cr.P.C. 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 in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned. . (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Om Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench