Lavkush Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:33646

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4936 of 2025

Applicant :- Lavkush Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Dheerendra Kr. Agnihotri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 274 of 2025 under Sections 87, 137 (2) BNS, P.S. Mohammadi, District Kheri.

¶8

As per contents of FIR, the minor sister of informant was allegedly enticed away on 28.04.2025.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has been introduced due to the statement of victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. in which an adolescent affair between the two has been admitted by the alleged victim and it has been stated that she voluntarily left her house whereafter the both have entered matrimony.

¶10

Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but does not dispute the said facts.

¶11

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶12

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than

¶13

verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶14

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶15

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage it appears that the present case is one of adolescent relationship with the age of victim indicated as 17 years and the applicant being 20 years of age. In her statement under Sections 180 & 183 B.N.S.S., the alleged victim has admitted to such an affair with marriage also taking place. The imputation of sections therefore against applicant would require consideration in that light. The applicant is under incarceration since 03.05.2025 without having any previous criminal history.

¶16

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶17

9. Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let applicant- Lavkush 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:-

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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 269 BNS.

¶21

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section

¶22

84 BNSS 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 209 BNS.

¶23

(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 351 BNSS. 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.

¶24

Order Date :- 30.5.2025 Satish

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lavkush v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lavkush v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amresh Kumar Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Pintu Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Israr @ Guddu vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Vishal vs State of U.P. Through Secretary Home Department, Civil Secretariat Lucknow

Kamlesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary Home Lko and Another

Lavkush vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.