Bainthe Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

The case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 17.02.2025 in furtherance of an application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. against the applicant and an unknown person on 28.11.2024, stating that the applicant is the cousin of the informant's husband. He was taking the informant's daughter aged 13 years to the house of her maternal uncle on 12.11.2024. On the way, he made the unknown co-accused person also sit on his motorcycle. Both of them took her to a school. The applicant stated that the co-accused person was a rich person and she should marry him. The other person molested the victim. When some persons came there, both the accused persons made the victim sit on the motorcycle and dropped her at Shivpur Bazar. The victim came home and told about the incident to the informant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim, while recording her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, has made material improvements in the prosecution case. She also refused to undergo medical examination.

¶11

It is further submitted that co-accused Ram Gopal, who has

¶12

been attributed a similar role, has already been granted bail vide order dated 28.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4727 of 2025, after due consideration of the merits of the case. The applicant is the real brother of coaccused Ram Gopal and he is in judicial custody since 03.04.2025. He has no criminal antecedents and has been falsely implicated in the case.

¶13

It is further submitted that earlier an FIR was lodged by the applicant's side, alleging the commission of rape against the informant side. The present FIR, in which the applicant is seeking bail, has been filed as a counterblast to the earlier FIR.

¶14

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

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.

¶16

On due consideration to the earlier FIR lodged by the wife of Ram Gopal (co-accused); bail order of co-accused Ram Gopal; statement of the victim and her refusal to undergo medical examination and considering the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.04.2025 without having any criminal history and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant Bainthe involved in Case Crime No.73 of 2025 under Sections 70(2) of B.N.S., Section 5g/6 of P.O.C.S.O. Act registered at Police Station- Nanpara, DistrictBahraich be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond

¶19

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:-

¶20

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶21

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

(iv) 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.

¶24

(v) 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.

¶25

(vi) 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.

¶26

Order Date :- 3.6.2025 R.C.

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bainthe v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bainthe v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

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

Janu Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko.

Ranjeet @ Ram Narayan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Man Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and 3 Others

Deepak Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Sooraj Kumar Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.