Ankit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:680

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33 of 2025

Applicant :- Ankit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Shahid Akhtar,Pankaj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Mohd. Shahid Akhtar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajnish Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 25.7.2024 in Case Crime No. 167 of 2024 u/s 376 IPC, P.S. Bakashi Ka Talab, District Lucknow.It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

¶8

Attention has been drawn towards impugned F.I.R. wherein the alleged date of incident has been indicated as 2.6.2024 but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 20.6.2024 without explaining the aforesaid inordinate delay. In the impugned F.I.R. the specific allegations have been levelled against one co-accused Virendra and allegation of molestation has been indicated against the present applicant and one Raj Kumar. However, during investigation the name of co-accused Raj Kumar and Virendra has been deleted and the charge-sheet has been filed against the present applicant. The basis of allegation which was against the present applicant is the statement of the minor daughter of the victim but when some specific and pinpointed questions were asked from her (daughter) she could not explain those queries properly as such statement has been enclosed as Annexure no. 6. The victim is a middle aged lady and the prosecution story from F.I.R. to statement u/s 180 B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S. are not consistent as the story is different. The applicant has no criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Charge-sheet has been filed in this

¶9

case.

¶10

The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

¶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

Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that in the F.I.R. the date of incident has been indicated as 2.6.2024 but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 20.6.2024 without explaining the aforesaid inordinate delay, in the impugned F.I.R. the specific allegations have been levelled against one co-accused Virendra and allegation of molestation has been indicated against the present applicant and one Raj Kumar but during investigation the name of co-accused Raj Kumar and Virendra has been deleted and sole charge-sheet has been filed against the present applicant, the basis of allegation which was against the present applicant is the statement of the minor daughter of the victim but when some specific and pinpointed questions were asked from her (daughter) she could not explain those queries properly, the prosecution story from F.I.R. to statement u/s 180 B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S. are not consistent as the story is different, applicant has no criminal history of any kind whatsoever, charge-sheet has been filed in this case and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶13

Bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant Ankit Kumar , involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to

¶15

the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

(i) 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.

¶17

(ii) 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 under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iii) 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. 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iv) 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. 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.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned.

¶21

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 6.1.2025/Om

¶23

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ankit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

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

Padum Prakash Mishra and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Finance Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Bade Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and Another

Rajendra Prasad Pandey and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Finance Govt. Lko and 4 Others

Ankit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Adil Ansari vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Sita Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko