Mukesh Giri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28147

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4137 of 2025 Applicant :- Mukesh Giri Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Suyesh Pradhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶6

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 465 of 2024, under Sections 137(2) and 87, BNS, P.S. Mohammadi, District Kheri.

¶7

As per contents of FIR which has been lodged against unidentified persons, allegation levelled is of minor sister of the informant being enticed away.

¶8

It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that there is no allegation against the applicant of having forcibly enticed away the victim from lawful custody of her legal guardians. It is submitted that in fact statement of victim clearly indicates that she voluntarily went away and that there was no physical relationship between the applicant and victim. It is submitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail application with the submission that the statements of victim under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS clearly indicate the complicity of applicant. It is however, admitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶10

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that although there is no contradiction in the statements of victim under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS but she has stated that she left her house of her own volition. The aspect of enticement away of the victim from her legal guardianship would require consideration during the course of trial. Admittedly, there was no physical relationship between the victim and applicant. The applicant is under incarceration since 29.03.2025 without any previous criminal history.

¶11

Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶12

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶13

Let applicant, Mukesh Giri involved in the aforesaid 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Renu/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mukesh Giri v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Giri v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Reena Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Manish Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Mohammad Gofran @ Gufran Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Aftab Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ram Kumar Singh @ Rajwal Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Brijesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.