SANDEEP KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO.
BAIL/9611/2025 · 2025-10-08
Pankaj Bhatia
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 199816 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 199816 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9611 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. No one appears on behalf of the informant despite service of notice. 2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.0514 of 2024, under Sections 87, 351 (3), 127(2), 64(1) of BNS, Police Station Masouli, District Barabanki. 3. The FIR in question was lodged alleging that on 12.12.2024, when the victim was going for examination, the applicant came and took her by the use of force on a motorcycle to Lucknow and threatened the victim. It was also alleged that certain photographs with garland were also made. It has been pointed out by the learned A.G.A. that at the instance of the same victim, an FIR No.7 of 2024 was lodged in which the applicant was enlarged on bail vide order dated 04.10.2024. Subsequently, the present FIR has also been lodged by the same victim. In the statement under Section 183 of BNSS, it was stated that on 13.12.2024, the applicant had taken the victim in a temple and had applied Sindoor on her forehead and the said photographs were also uploaded facebook and whatsapp. The victim refused to undergo medication examination. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer. 5. Considering the fact as stated above coupled with the fact that the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohan Lal Srivastava, Pramod Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sandeep Kumar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s)
victim has refused to undergo medication examination; the applicant is in custody since 15.02.2025 and the applicant has criminal history of one case lodged by the same victim, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed . 6.
Let the applicant Sandeep Kumar be released on bail in the abovesaid first information report number on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: (a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and (c) 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. October 8, 2025 akverma BAIL No. 9611 of 2025 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench