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

In the prosecution case, it has been alleged that on 29.08.2025 at about 9:30 a.m., the applicant forcibly dragged the victim into a sugarcane field and molested her. It is further alleged that when the victim raised an alarm, the accused assaulted her with a banka on her hand and thereafter fled from the spot.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment of up to five years. The charge sheet has already been submitted. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and has been languishing in jail since 08.09.2025.

¶13

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Learned A.G.A., as well as learned counsel for the complainant, have opposed the prayer for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that the statements of the victim are duly corroborated by the injury report, though the injuries have been opined to be simple in nature. It is further contended that the present case is not one of false implication.

¶15

BAIL No. 10277 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

Upon due consideration of the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the fact that the offences alleged are punishable with a maximum sentence of five years, the charge sheet has already been filed, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, and he is in custody since 08.09.2025, this Court is of the considered view that the present case is fit for granting bail to the applicant.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant Raj Kishore involved in Case Crime No.- 236/2025, Under Sections- 74,118(1) B.N.S and 7/8 POCSO Act, Station- Shardanagar, District Kheri, 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:-

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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 in accordance with law.

¶25

(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

¶26

BAIL No. 10277 of 2025

¶27

3

¶28

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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

¶29

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.

¶30

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶31

November 10, 2025 R.C.

¶32

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kishore v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

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.

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