Laxman vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:16020

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2535 of 2025

Applicant :- Laxman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 375 of 2024, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Narkhhi , District Firozabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have established corporeal relationship with the victim on the false promise of marriage and is even stated to have terminated the pregnancy thrice.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The victim is major and the applicant is also a youth aged about 24 years.

¶11

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

¶12

There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail

¶14

application.

¶15

The Supreme Court passed in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2019 (9)SC 608 and Ansar Mohammad Vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886 , has stated that entering into any kind of corporeal relationship with a person on the false promise to marry, cannot be termed as rape.

¶16

In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant- Laxman , who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶19

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶20

(ii) 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 313 Cr.P.C. 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.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in

¶23

forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶24

Order Date :- 4.2.2025 Sumit S

¶25

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Laxman v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Kanijan vs State of U.P.

Vikash Nishad vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Triloki Yadav vs State of U.P.

Ravi Kashyap vs State of U.P.

Shivom and Another vs State of U.P.

Dilshad vs State of U.P.