Sanju vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Sanju with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.49 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 142 B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Adarshmandi, District- Shamli, during pendency of trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused applicant is languishing in jail since 6.4.2025. It is submitted that the victim Sushma in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. has stated that she is 19 years of age and has solemnized marriage with the applicant. She further stated that she was a student of junior high school and her date of birth as per school records is of the year 2005. It is further submitted that applicant has not committed any obscene act against the victim. It is further argued that as per the medical report/ossification test the age of the victim has been found to be 1920 years and the age of the applicant is about 21 years. It is contended that the applicant undertakes to marry the victim as and when he comes out of the judicial custody/jail. It is lastly submitted

¶12

BAIL No. 25606 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

that applicant has no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶15

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions.

¶16

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677 , considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid 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 with the following conditions that:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶18

(ii) 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.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 of BNS.

¶20

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of BNSS is issued and the applicants fail 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

¶21

BAIL No. 25606 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

Section 174-A IPC/209 of BNS.

¶24

(v) 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 313 Cr.P.C./351 of BNSS 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.

¶25

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

¶26

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶27

September 9, 2025 RA

¶28

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanju v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanju v. State of U.P. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Suchit Maurya vs State of U.P.

Kartikey Kumar Singh vs State of U.P.

Tasleem vs State of U.P.

Sarif vs State of U.P.

Sarvesh Singh vs Union of India and Another

Chandraveer @ Chandu vs State of U.P.