Prashant Babu Gautam Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:105790

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19909 of 2025

Applicant :- Prashant Babu Gautam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Singh,Himanshu Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Prashant Babu Gautam, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 95 of 2025, under Section 69 BNS, registered at P.S. Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat.

¶9

The F.I.R. of the matter was lodged on 18.3.2025 by the victim herself against the applicant and 04 other accused persons alleging therein that she knew the applicant for the last 02 years. On false promise to marry the applicant committed rape upon her. When she asked to marry he refused. She told it to her parents then they went to the house of the applicant and then a settlement was entered between the parties on 26.10.2024 and court marriage was fixed for 05.11.2024. Subsequently the applicant and his family members have refused court marriage. Then on 13.3.2025 she went to the house of the applicant where she was assaulted.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted while placing para- 13 of the affidavit that the applicant and the victim have solemnized marriage on 05.11.2024 at Arya Samaj Mandir and both were living as husband and wife. He also placed para-17 and annexure no.6 to the affidavit being the photographs of marriage which was solemnized at Arya Samaj Mandir, Kanpur Dehat. It is submitted that the applicant has married the victim in Arya Samaj Mandir as per Hindu rites and rituals. It is submitted

¶11

that the case of the complainant would be of falsity that the applicant has refused married with her. Further while placing para18 of the affidavit it is again reiterated that marriage of the applicant has been solemnized at Arya Samaj Mandir but the original certificate is in the custody of the victim and she has not given even the photocopy of the same to the applicant. It is argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para- 20 of the affidavit and is in jail since 22.03.2025.

¶12

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail but did not deny the specific averments in para- 13, 17 and 18 of the affidavit being with regard to marriage of the applicant with the victim.

¶13

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that specific case of the applicant is that the applicant and the victim have solemnized marriage in Arya Samaj Mandir and have been issued certificate for the same. Even the photograph of marriage has been placed on record as annexure no.6 to the affidavit. The victim is a major girl.

¶14

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Prashant Babu Gautam, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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:-

¶16

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶19

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023 may be issued and if 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 209 BNS, 2023.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNS, 2023.

¶21

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶22

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶23

The bail application is allowed.

¶24

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶25

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶26

Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Naresh

¶27

Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prashant Babu Gautam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Babu Gautam v. State of U.P.

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