Ramesh Das Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36080

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5361 of 2025

Applicant :- Ramesh Das Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Yugal Kishor Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Mahendra Pratap Singh, Advocate who has filed his Vaklatnama on behalf of the complainant/ informant/ opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in FIR/ Case Crime No. 39 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) of BNS and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Sangipur, District Pratapgarh.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He added that at the time of marriage the applicant was not informed by the alleged victim that she is minor rather she told that she is 18 years of age. In support of his contention he has drawn attention towards Annexure No.5 which is the statement of the alleged victim under Section 183 BNSS and submitted that the victim herself had stated to the applicant that she is of 18 years of age and under the bonafide belief the applicant performed marriage with the alleged victim. He submits that there is no criminal intent to commit any offence and therefore, the criminal proceeding initiated against the applicant is amount to harassment. He next submits that the applicant is of 21 years of age and he is languishing in jail since 03.05.2025 and there is no previous criminal history. He has also submits that the chargesheet has been filed and as such there is no possibility that he would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses and and undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarge on bail.

¶9

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has supported the version of learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that he has no objection to the contention aforesaid.

¶10

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contention of learned counsel for the applicant and submits that there is serious allegation against the applicant but he could not dispute the fact with respect to the statement of the victim given under Section 183 BNSS wherein she admitted the fact that at the time of performing the marriage she was 18 years of age.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and particularly the statement of victim under Section 183 BNSS and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.05.2025; prima facie, the applicant is 21 years of age and at the time of marriage, the victim told that she is 18 years of age; there is no criminal intent to commit any offence; prima facie, there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect him with the offence coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

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.

¶13

Let the applicant- Ramesh Das involved in the aforementioned 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:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(2) 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. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or

¶16

through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC (Now Section 269 BNS);

¶17

(3) 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. (Now Section 351 BNSS); and

¶18

(4) 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. (Now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (Now Section 209 BNS).

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 23.6.2025 Mohd. Sharif

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramesh Das v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Das v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Akhilesh Mishra @ Monu Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Budhiram Alias Budhai vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 2 Others

Karm Veer Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Babban @ Parvesh Shukla Vs State of U.P. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Javed Khan @ Javed Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Chandra Prakash Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko