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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25031

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11804 of 2024

Applicant :- Musheef Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Chandra Tewari

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Case called out.

¶7

Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State is present.

¶8

Cause list shows the name of Sri Dinesh Chandra Tiwari, Advocate as counsel for the applicant, but neither he is present nor has sent any request for adjournment of the case.

¶9

The informant has a right to oppose the bail-application, but the case cannot be adjourned on the ground of unavailability of the counsel, when the applicant is languishing in jail, the State has filed a counter-affidavit and the learned A.G.A. is present to advance submission in opposition to the bail application.

¶10

Heard and perused the records.

¶11

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.224 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) B.N.S. & 3/4 of P.O.C.S.O. Act registered at Police Station- Jarwal Road, District- Bahraich.

¶12

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 20.08.2024 implicating one Virendra on the basis of suspicion, alleging that the informant's daughter aged about 16 years had gone away from her home at about 08:00 PM on 18.08.2024, she took Rs.65,000/- cash and some jewellery with her and the informant apprehended that the named accused Virendra had enticed her away.

¶13

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., she stated that she had gone away from her home, she met one Munseef (applicant) outside the village and went to Delhi with him. She had brought Rs.65,000/- and some

¶14

jewellery from her home which she gave to Munseef. She knew one Raju Yadav alias Krishna Kumar Yadav since before and met him in Delhi. Munseef asked her to marry Raju Yadav and, thereafter, she married Raju Yadav. In the medico-legal examination of the victim, no mark of injury or sign of use of force has been found. The age of the victim has been opined to be 15-16 years as per her medico-legal examination report.

¶15

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., she stated that she went out of her home at about 5.00 hrs on 18.08.2024. She met the applicant outside the village and went with him to Delhi. She had brought some money and jewellery from home, which she gave to the applicant. She met Raju at Delhi and the applicant asked her to marry Raju and went away. She stated that Raju had married him. She also stated that she knows the applicant for the past 4-5 months.

¶16

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is a 22 years old innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history. Raju has already been granted bail by means of order dated 21.03.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11721 of 2024.

¶17

The learned A.G.A.-I has opposed the bail-application and submitted that the allegations have been established during investigation and a chargesheet has been filed against both the accused persons.

¶18

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the victim has merely stated that she met the applicant outside her village and went with him to Delhi, where she married the co-accused Raju; that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 21.09.2024, whereas the investigation already stands concluded and co-accused Raju has already been granted bail, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶19

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant- Munseef Khan be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶21

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶22

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶23

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶24

( Subhash Vidyarthi, J. )

¶25

Order Date :- 29.4.2025 A.Nigam

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Musheef Khan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shivam Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Rajendra @ Gyani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rahul Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Mahtab vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Rinku vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

Sandeep Madheshiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home District Lko. and 3 Others