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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37124

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5691 of 2025

Applicant :- Narendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Avnish Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Avnish Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has requested that he may be permitted to delete the opposite party No.2 from the array of opposite parties.

¶8

Considering the aforesaid request, learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to delete the opposite party No.2 during the course of the day.

¶9

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Narendra) is languishing in jail since 14.05.2025 in Case Crime No.0072 of 2025 under Sections 376-D, 506 IPC and 67 of I.T. Act, Police Station- Baghauli, District- Hardoi. He has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

¶10

Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 07.04.2021 but the impugned FIR has been lodged on 07.04.2025 i.e. after more than four years of the alleged incident and the inordinate delay has not been explained in the FIR. The victim and present applicant are relative. The present applicant is a cousin brother of brother-in-law (Jija) of the victim and she has levelled allegation against her brother-in-law (Jija) as well as against the present applicant. He has further submitted that the allegation has been levelled against four accused persons but the name of accused No.2 Priti and accused No.4 brother-in-law of Rajneesh Kumar has been deleted from the chargesheet. However, chargesheet has been filed against Rajneesh Kumar, brother-inlaw of the victim and the present applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the present applicant is

¶11

having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. He has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly.

¶12

Learned Additional Government Advocate has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he has not disputed the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that the incident took place on 07.04.2021 and the impugned FIR has been lodged on 07.04.2025 i.e. after more than four years of the alleged incident and the inordinate delay has not been explained in the FIR, the victim and present applicant are relative; the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever; and the undertaking that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and he 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 enlarged on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant (Narendra) 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 appear before the Investigating Officer to cooperate in the investigation and shall further remain present to cooperate in the investigation as and when the Investigating Team calls him to appear and if the charge-sheet is filed against him he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly and shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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

¶19

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 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 applicants shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶21

Order Date :- 2.7.2025 Reena/-

¶22

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

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

Dr. Manish Chittranshi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ramdev Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

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

Priyanka Ojha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.