HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12049 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.209 of 2025 under Sections 87 and 137(2) BNSS, Police Station Singahi, District Lakhimpur Kheri. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the minor daughter of the informant, aged about 13 years, was enticed away by the applicant on 03.09.2025. It is further alleged that while leaving, the victim took Rs.30,000/- in cash as well as certain jewellery with her. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim was a consenting party and had gone with the applicant of her own accord after being annoyed with her parents. She has not made any allegation in her statement under Section 180 BNSS; rather, she has denied the prosecution case. In her statement under Section 183 BNSS, she again did not support the prosecution version and reiterated what she had stated under Section 180 BNSS. No abnormality has been detected in the medico-legal examination of the victim. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Nigam, Suraj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Dhruv Kumar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. On due consideration of the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, the prima facie element of enticement appears to be missing; the applicant has no criminal history; the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.9.2025 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Dhruv Kumar, involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case crime number, 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. Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. December 4, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S BAIL No. 12049 of 2025 2 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench