Mohd. Imran vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:101023

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20792 of 2025

Applicant :- Mohd. Imran Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Patel,Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Mohd. Imran, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 115 of 2025, under Sections 64(1), 87 BNS, registered at P.S. Kotwali, District Maharajganj.

¶9

The FIR of the matter was lodged on 03.03.2025 by Sushila Devi against the applicant and Pooja alleging therein that her daughter was living in the house of the applicant on rent and working in the construction of railway line. On 02.03.2025 the applicant lured her and enticed her away. Pooja the daughter of Lakhan is also involved in the matter. Report be lodged and action be taken.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the victim is a major girl and her age as per school records is about 19 years. It is submitted that the victim went with the applicant out of her own sweet will. The victim was knowing the applicant since last some months and they were talking to each other. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para17 of the affidavit and is in jail since 30.03.2025.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶12

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the victim is a major girl. The victim went with the applicant on train but there was no objection or opposition done by her. They stayed in Amrawati at Vijaywara for 20 days wherein also the victim did not oppose it.

¶13

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.

¶14

Let the applicant Mohd. Imran , 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she/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.

¶18

(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 her/him 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 her/him, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS, 2023.

¶19

(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 her/him in accordance with law and the trial court

¶20

may proceed against her/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

Order Date :- 1.7.2025 M. ARIF

¶26

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Imran v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Imran 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

Similar cases

Vikas Nishad vs State of U.P.

Bharat Bhushan Bharati vs State of U.P. and Another

Nitin Alias Bholu vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vipin vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dinesh Kumar @ Kallu vs State of U.P.

Sartaz vs State of U.P.