Munesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12040 of 2024

Munesh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Indra Pratap Singh, Ashvani Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 12

¶8

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶9

Case called out. None appears on behalf of the applicant. Learned AGA is present.

¶10

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the minor daughter of the informant, aged about 13 years, who was employed in a factory, was enticed away by her co-worker, Munesh, on 19.12.2022.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim had voluntarily and of her own free will went with the applicant, which is evident from her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is stated that she travelled by tempo to Barabanki, from where she proceeded to Delhi and married the applicant. However, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has given a contradictory version. As per the prosecution case, the victim accompanied the applicant to several cities and stayed with him for a considerable period, yet no alarm was raised during that time. The medicolegal examination of the victim has revealed no abnormalities. It is further submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 28.03.2023 and has no prior criminal antecedents. Moreover, the independent witnesses have not corroborated the prosecution version.

¶12

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.

¶13

BAIL No. 12040 of 2024

¶14

2

¶15

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

On due consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. indicating that she voluntarily accompanied the applicant, the absence of any abnormality in the medico-legal examination, and the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in custody since 28.03.2023, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant Munesh involved in Case Crime No. 345/2022, Under section- 363,366,376 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Jhangirabad, District- Barabanki, 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:-

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

BAIL No. 12040 of 2024

¶25

3

¶26

(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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

¶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 merits of the trial.

¶28

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶29

September 11, 2025 R.C.

¶30

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

Munesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. 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

Shyam Babu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Rohit Patel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Akash Rathour vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Munesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and 3 Others

Pucchi Alias Satya Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others