Mohd. Furkan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Heard Shri Arun Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶12

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.420 of 2025 under Section 115(2), 351(2), 317(2), 305(a), 331(4), 318(4) BNS, Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow.

¶13

In the prosecution case it is alleged that on 07.08.2025, while the applicant was unwell, the accused/applicant forcibly entered her room and threatened to kill her. Again, on 11.08.2025, in the afternoon, when the complainant was not present at home, the accused broke into her room and committed theft of Rs.25,000/- in cash.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal history. It is further submitted that the essential ingredients to attract the offence under Section 331(4) BNS are missing. The prosecutrix has refused to undergo medical examination. It is also contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The offence alleged is triable by a Magistrate, and the charge sheet in the matter has already been filed.

¶15

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the

¶16

BAIL No. 10222 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶19

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above.

¶20

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record.

¶21

On due consideration to the facts that the applicant has been in jail since 19.08.2025, that the applicant has no criminal history, and that the offence is triable by a Magistrate, I am of the view that, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶22

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶23

Let the applicant Mohd. Furkan 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 court below concerned with the following conditions:

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

(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.

¶27

(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.

¶28

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each

¶29

BAIL No. 10222 of 2025

¶30

3

¶31

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 IPC (now Section 269 BNS).

¶32

(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 IPC (now Section 209 BNS).

¶33

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.

¶34

November 10, 2025

¶35

Madhu D.R/P.S

¶36

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶37

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Furkan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Furkan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Shoaib Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Rakesh Yadav @ Rakesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko.

Devendra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko

Rupesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shushil Kumar Yadav @ Sonu Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.

Raj Kishore Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others