Surjeet Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13101

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1759 of 2025

Applicant :- Surjeet Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajneesh Kumar Verma, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 17.11.2024 in Case Crime No.285 of 2024, under Sections 64(2)M & 351 (2) of B.N.S., Police Station – Subeha, District – Barabanki.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, which has been lodged on 13.11.2024 for the alleged incident dated 07.10.2024 without explaining the aforesaid inordinate delay. As per allegations of the FIR, before the alleged date of incident dated 07.10.2024, the present applicant established physical relation with the prosecutrix four times on the basis of threat to viral one video, which was allegedly clicked by him when the prosecutrix was taking bath. During investigation, no such video has been found, therefore, charge sheet has not been filed under the relevant provisions of I.T. Act; besides, the prosecutrix has stated in her statement recorded under Section 180 of the B.N.S.S. that such video was sent to her husband by the applicant and when the specific question was put up from the husband of the prosecutrix, he denied that fact and has stated that he has not received any such video. Since the FIR has been lodged after a substantial delay and the prosecutrix being a married lady having a child, therefore, the allegations of the FIR have not been corroborated.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the present applicant is a young boy of 20 years and is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Charge sheet has been filed. Further, the applicant undertakes that if he is

¶10

released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR; the fact that there is inordinate unexplained delay in lodging the FIR; as per allegation, the present applicant established physical relation with the prosecutrix four times on the basis of threat to viral one video, which was allegedly clicked by him when the prosecutrix was taking bath, but during investigation, no such video has been found, therefore, charge sheet has not been filed under the relevant provisions of I.T. Act, besides the prosecutrix has stated in her statement recorded under Section 180 of the B.N.S.S. that such video was sent to her husband by the applicant and when the specific question was put up from the husband of the prosecutrix, he denied that fact and has stated that he has not received any such video; the applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let applicant- Surjeet be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-

¶15

(i) 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.

¶16

(ii) 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 269 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶17

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to

¶18

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 208 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶21

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶22

Order Date :- 4.3.2025 RBS/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Surjeet v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjeet v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Mayaram Kori Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Lko and 3 Others

Nadiya Khaja Shaikh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Tahseen and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Ankit @ Chhotu @ Amit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Rajneesh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

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