Irfan Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3805

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 442 of 2025

Applicant :- Irfan Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rupendra Kumar Singh, learned State Counsel.

¶7

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Irfan Khan) is languishing in jail since 29.10.2024 in Case Crime No.387 of 2024, under Sections 69, 331 (4), 352 and 351 (3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station-Pisawan, District-Sitapur.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has falsely been implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

¶9

4. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) wherein the first date of incident has been indicated as 05.07.2024 but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 26.10.2024. Thereafter, the same incident repeated on 25.10.2024 and on such incident the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged.

¶10

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the prosecutrix has not explained as to why the first F.I.R. has not been lodged immediately after the first date of incident on 05.07.2024. Besides, the reasons so indicated in the F.I.R. creates doubt on the prosecution story inasmuch as there was no earlier relation of the applicant with the prosecutrix and only on the first date of promise of marriage on 05.07.2024 he established physical relation. The prosecutrix was medically examined and in the medical examination the prosecution story could not be substantiated. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. The charge-sheet has been filed in this case. Learned counsel for the applicant has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant

¶11

shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings properly.

¶12

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has, however, opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that since the role of the present applicant was found in the commission of crime, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that the first date of incident has been indicated as 05.07.2024 but the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on 26.10.2024 when the same incident repeated on 25.10.2024; the prosecutrix was medically examined and in the medical examination the prosecution story could not be substantiated; the charge-sheet has been filed in this case; the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever; the undertaking that the present applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly; without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the present applicant may be released on bail in this case.

¶14

8. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶15

9. Let the applicant (Irfan Khan) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-

¶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 IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶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./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such

¶19

proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶20

(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./351 of B.N.S.S., 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. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶21

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶22

Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Suresh/

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Irfan Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

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

Mohd. Akram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Saddiq Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Jasvant Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko

Shakeel Ahmad and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance, Lko. and 10 Others

Sahab Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.