Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10860 of 2025

¶3

Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Kushwaha

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhilesh Kumar, Indu Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 15

¶8

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶9

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶10

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated, having no criminal history. The allegation of molestation against the applicant is false. The co-accused Atul is the main accused. Improvement has been made by the victim in her statement under section 183 BNSS. There is a lack of corroborative evidence in support of the prosecution case. The applicant is in jail since 20.9.2025.

¶11

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.

¶12

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submits that charge sheet in the case has been filed and the complainant has been served.

¶13

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, the offences are punishable upto seven years, improvement made by the victim in the prosecution case, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on

¶14

BAIL No. 10860 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

bail.

¶17

6. Let the applicant Sumit Kumar alias Sumit Kushwaha, involved in Case Crime No.323 of 2025 under sections 74, 75(2), 137(2) BNS (corresponding sections 354, 354-A, 363 I.P.C.) and sections 9/10 POCSO Act, P.S. Sarojani Nagar, district Lucknow, 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:-

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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 I.P.C. (now 269 BNS)

¶23

(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 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 I.P.C. (now 209 BNS).

¶24

7. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶25

BAIL No. 10860 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merit of the trial.

¶28

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶29

November 11, 2025

¶30

kkb/

¶31

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Kushwaha v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Kushwaha v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko 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

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

Manmohan @ Mohan Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Abhay Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Karmveer Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.