Prashant Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20998

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1186 of 2025

Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Tripathi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma,Akhilendra Pratap Singh,Vinod Kumar Yadav

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar,Suhail Kashif

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Alok Kumar Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and perused the records.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.65 of 2024 under Sections 69, 352, 351(1) B.N.S. registered at Police Station- Gautampalli, DistrictLucknow.

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 20.11.2024 against the applicant and one Amit Verma, stating that while the informant was searching alliance for her marriage through online modes, she came in contact with the applicant through "BUMBLE" App. The applicant assured the informant that he would marry her in December, 2024. He took her to Haridwar on 22.09.2024, put Sindoor on her head and under pretext of marrying her forcibly made physical relations with her repetitively and prepared video and photos of the incident. Thereafter, the applicant made physical relations with the informant on numerous occasions but ultimately, he declined to marry her. She alleged that the applicant had taken numerous obscene photos and videos of the informant and that the applicant's friend Amit Verma was also involved in commission of the offence.

¶10

In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 180

¶11

B.N.S.S., she stated that she is aged 32 years. She further stated that when the applicant had assured that he would marry her, she had stayed with him in a Hotel at Banaras on 17.07.2024 where the applicant made physical relations with her under allurement of marrying her. Thereafter, she again went to Banaras with the applicant on 16.08.2024 and stayed in a Hotel. The informant had stayed with the applicant in a Hotel at Delhi also and lastly they stayed together in a Hotel at Haridwar on 22.09.2024.

¶12

The medico-legal examination report mentions no mark of injury or sign of use of force

¶13

In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., she stated that she is a Graduate, she is aged 32 years and she is preparing for getting a Government job. She came in contact with the applicant through a Dating App and she stated that she stayed with the applicant in a Hotel at Haridwar on 22.09.2024 where the applicant made physical relations. She further alleged that the applicant again came to her alongwith the co-accused Amit Verma after about 10-12 days and showed obscene video of the informant.

¶14

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is a young man aged 29 years having no criminal history and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶15

The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith the material collected during investigation and a copy of the charge-sheet dated 24.01.2025.

¶16

A rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant in reply to the averments made in the counter affidavit.1

¶17

Learned A.G.A. as well as the learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that allegations have been substantiated by the material collected during

¶18

investigation and, accordingly, a charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant.

¶19

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant herself had stated that she is a Graduate aged 32 years and she had came in contact with the applicant through a Dating App and not through any matrimonial website; the applicant is capable of understanding her actions and their repercussions and yet she made physical relations with the applicant under a hope that the applicant will marry her, although she had came in contact with the applicant through a Dating App; that the applicant is a young man having no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 26.12.2024 whereas the investigation already stands concluded, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶20

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶21

Let the applicant- Prashant Kumar Tripathi 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:-

¶22

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

¶23

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶24

Order Date :- 15.4.2025 -Amit K-

¶25

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

Prashant Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Atul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Krishna Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Amreesh Kumar @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Saurabh Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Mohammad Shahban Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others