Sandeep Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32033 of 2025

Sandeep

	Versus	...	..Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. And 3 Others			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Naveen Kumar	Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 66

¶6

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶7

List revised.

¶8

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

¶9

This second bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Sandeep, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 299 of 2025, under Section(s) 137(2), 87, 64(1) B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Jhinjhana, District Shamli.

¶10

The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 21.8.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.28604 of 2025.

¶11

The F.I.R.of the matter was lodged on 23.6.2025 by Balkisha against the applicant and Meharban alleging therein that her daughter aged about 16 years and 10 months was allured and enticed away by the applicant/Sandeep on 10.6.2025. While going away she took away gold ornaments and Rs.45,000/- kept in the house. Meharban had helped them.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the victim was produced before the C.M.O. concerned, who has opined the age of the victim to be about 18-19 years. It is submitted that the victim was

¶13

BAIL No. 32033 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

produced before the doctor but she refused her medical examination. It is submitted that the victim in her statements recorded during investigation has stated that she went with the applicant out of her own sweet will and was staying with him as his wife. It is submitted that the present case is a case of consent. It is submitted that the victim and the applicant had filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh being CRWP-6332 of 2025, Shaista and another versus State of Haryana and others, which was decided vide order dated 13.6.2025 in which the case therein was that they are in live-in relationship and the private respondents are interfering in their life in which the Court concerned had directed Superintendent of Police, Karnal,Haryana/respondent no. 2 therein to look in representation dated 10.6.2025 regarding threat perception and take necessary steps, copy of the said order has been placed before the Court which is annexure no. 10 to the affidavit. It is argued that the applicant has a criminal history of one case apart from the present case in which he has been granted bail, para-20 of the affidavit has been placed for the same. The applicant is in jail since 25.6.2025.

¶16

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

¶17

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that as per the certificate of C.M.O. concerned, the victim was opined to be about 18-19 years of age. The victim during investigation has stated that she went with the applicant out of her own sweet will.

¶18

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.

¶19

Let the applicant- Sandeep, 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:-

¶20

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not

¶21

BAIL No. 32033 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶24

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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

(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.

¶27

(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.

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30