Vinay Kushwaha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29748

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4345 of 2025 Applicant :- Vinay Kushwaha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Tewari,Sushil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar Tewari, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Ashok Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 114 of 2025, under Sections 69 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S.S, registered at Police Station Banthara, District Lucknow.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 09.03.2025 on the basis of an application under Section 173(4) B.N.S filed on 12.11.2024, stating that under allurement of marrying the informant, the applicant physically exploited her for 1 and 1/2 years. However, the applicant stopped interacting with her for the past two months and he stated that he now does not want to marry her. The informant also alleged that the applicant had threatened to virally spread her obscene photos and videos.

¶8

In the statement of the victim/informant recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., she reiterated her earlier version.

¶9

The medico legal examination report of the victim mentions no mark of injury or sign of use of force, although the hymen was reported to be old, torned and healed.

¶10

In the statement of the victim/informant recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., she stated that she is aged 23 yeas. She used to work in Amazon company. The applicant resided in her neighborhood and she came in contact with him in April 2024. They started talking and in August, 2024, the applicant had proposed to marry her. She believed the applicant and the applicant made physical relations under allurement of marrying her. The applicant took about Rs. 50,000/- from her in the name of marriage but thereafter the applicant stopped communicating with her. The informant further stated that she had filed some application in the court and when its notice was served on the applicant he called her to his home at 06:30 PM on 20.10.2024 and stated that he would marry her . He deleted the photos and chats from the informant's phone.

¶11

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is a young man aged 21 years having no criminal history and he

¶12

has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶13

The learned A.G.A has opposed the bail application and he has submitted that the allegations have been established during investigation and a charge-sheet has already been submitted on 23.04.2025. However, he stated that the allegation of threatening to virally spread all obscene photos and videos could not be established during investigation.

¶14

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the informant herself had stated that she is aged 23 years old educated lady who is working in M.N.C; the applicant is a 21 years old boy, the informant repetitively made physical relations with the applicant without marriage; there is nothing on record which may prima facie indicates that the intention of the applicant since inception was to deceive the informant and that the applicant is a young man aged 21 years old having no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 02.04.2025 whereas the investigation already stands concluded, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

¶15

10.Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant- Vinay Kushwaha be released on bail in aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: -

¶17

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶18

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶19

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶20

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Preeti.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vinay Kushwaha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kushwaha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

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

Similar cases

Pinku @ Mustakeem @ Irfan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Gautam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Karam Chandra Patel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Durgesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Maharaja Agrasen Promoters Thru. Prop. Brijendra Kumar Agarwal vs Sri Manish Pandya

Asif Naseem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another