Mubeen @ Sameer vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45548

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21 of 2025

Applicant :- Mubeen @ Sameer Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiva Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the informant’s daughter, aged about 17 years, left for school on 22.07.2024 at around 10:00 a.m. towards Mohammadi. When she did not return by 3:00 p.m., the informant made efforts to trace her, but she could not be found. On the next day, the victim informed the informant that she is in Delhi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim willingly accompanied the applicant, as is evident from her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. The victim stayed with the applicant voluntarily for two days and, during this period, did not raise any alarm, even while traveling with him through public places across various districts. It is further submitted that the applicant, who has no prior criminal history, is in judicial custody since 24.07.2024. The medical examination of the victim does not support the prosecution version. As per the radiological report, the victim is a major, and even according to the school records, she was 17 years, 11 months, and 17 days old on the date of the incident.

¶9

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or

¶10

tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

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.

¶12

Perused the record.

¶13

A perusal of the statement of the victim under Section 183 BNSS, it appears that she eloped due to threats from the applicant regarding certain photographs and videos, however, it is admitted that the investigating officer has not recovered any such material in the course of the investigation.

¶14

Considering the radiological age of the victim, the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed, and the applicant is in custody since 24.07.2024 without any criminal antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that a case for grant of bail is made out.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant Mubeen @ Sameer involved in Crime No. 485/2024, U/s 137(2), 87, 64(2)m B.N.S., & 5L/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station-Mohammadi, District-Lakhimpur Kheri 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:-

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(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

¶20

evidence.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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).

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 5.8.2025 R.C.

¶26

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

Mubeen @ Sameer v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mubeen @ Sameer v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Satendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Rural Development Lko and 5 Others

Dr. P.R. Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Secy. Deptt. of Ayush,Lko. and Another

Meharun Nisha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ajeet Kumar Maurya and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 or.

Ali Hasan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. and Another

Sandeep Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Administrative Reforms, Govt. U.P. Lucknow and 2 Others