Umer Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45016

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1248 of 2025

Applicant :- Umer Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Pandey,Avinash Shukla,Jyoti Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.372 of 2024, under Sections 70(1), 351(2) BNS, Sections 5/6 of POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶8

In the prosecution case it is alleged that minor daughter of the informant aged about 15 years on 19.09.2024 at about 03:00 am while she was returning home after attending call of nature three accused persons gagged her mouth and took her away from home and have gang raped her.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated. The F.I.R. has been lodged after delay of five days. Applicant has explained the criminal history of one case. No corroborative material during medical examination of the victim was found neither external nor internal injury has been found. There is no sign of force opined by the doctor. Radiological age of the victim is 16-17 years as per the radio-logical examination. The victim was having affair with one Adarsh

¶10

kumar alias Ravi Kishan. The Investigating Officer in parcha dated 09.10.2024 has opined that both had mobile conversations between them. The Investigating Officer on the date of incident and time found the location of the victim as well as Adarsh Kumar at the same place. It is submitted that it is a case of false implication as the Investigating Officer initially has submitted a final report in favour of the applicant however, later on, upon an application given by the complainant further investigation was ordered and charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant on the basis of statement of villagers. It is a case of false implication. Three independent witness namely Omkar, Gulam Mohammad and Sagram have denied the statement. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 24.09.2024.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer.

¶12

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.09.2024, applicant is not a previous convict, criminal history of one case has been explained, victim as per radiological examination is 16-17 years, there is no corroborative material in the medical examination of the victim and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant Umer Khan be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution

¶17

witness.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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 under Section 229-A of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 269 of BNS).

¶21

(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 of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 209 BNS).

¶22

Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Umer Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umer Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deepesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. and Another

Babi @ Shakir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Surjeet Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Umer Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Guddu Alias Dharmendra Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Yogendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.