Allowed¶17

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

Allahabad HC20 Aug 2025BAIL/6221/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted to 22-year-old applicant in kidnapping case (Sections 137, 87 BNS) where victim (16) stated she went voluntarily, no physical relations, no injuries, investigation concluded. Court relied on victim's consistent statements under Sections 180, 183 BNSS and applicant's young age.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount to satisfaction of Magistrate/Court, subject to conditions: (i) not tamper with prosecution evidence; (ii) not pressurize prosecution witnesses; (iii) appear on each date fixed by trial court. ¶17

Nadir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48971

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6221 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Nadir Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Islam Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Mohd. Islam Khan, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Smt. Kamlesh Kumari, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.0014 of 2025, under Sections 137, 87 B.N.S, registered at Police Station Alambagh, District Lucknow.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 14.01.2025 against three named persons, including the applicant, stating that the applicant had enticed away the informant's daughter aged 16 years and the informant's daughter had taken Rs. 80 Lakhs and jewellery worth Rs. 2 Lakhs.

¶9

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., she stated that she had gone with the applicant out of her own free will and no physical relations were made between them.

¶10

The medico legal examination report of the victim mentions no mark of injury or sign of use of force. As per ossification test, the age of the victim has been opined to be 16 years.

¶11

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., she reiterated her earlier version and she had gone away with the applicant out of her own free will.

¶12

In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is a young man aged 22 years and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶13

A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant disclosing his involvement in two other criminal

¶14

cases, in one of which, the Investigating Officer has submitted a closure report and in the other case, the applicant has been granted benefit of Section 41 (A) Cr.P.C.

¶15

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and she has been submitted that the allegations have been established and the chargesheet has been submitted.

¶16

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the consistent statements of the victim wherein she has not levelled any allegations against the applicant; that the applicant is a young man aged 22 years and he is languishing in jail since 15.01.2025 whereas the investigation already stands concluded, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

¶17

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶18

Let the applicant- Nadir be released on bail in aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: -

¶19

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶20

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶21

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶22

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Preeti.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadir 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

Vishal Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Arif Anwar Hashmi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anjani Kumar Kaushal vs State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat Lucknow

Vishal Gautam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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