Naved v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2025BAIL/6618/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted on parity with co-accused Ajij (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9304/2025) in a case under BNS Sections 140(4), 115(2), 352, 351(3) involving allegations of sodomy and assault; conditions imposed including non-tampering, non-intimidation, undertaking against adjournments, mandatory appearance, and consequences for misuse.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with conditions (i) to (vi). ¶¶22-¶32

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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6618 of 2025

Naved

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Syed Wajahat Ali @ Vijahat Ali, Virendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 15

¶9

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶11

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 16.04.2025 against 3 persons, including the applicant, stating that all the three accused persons had forcibly made the complainant sit on a motorcycle and when he tried to raise a hue and cry, all three accused persons beat him up with kicks, fists and sticks and they threatened him. He was afraid and ashamed. There was a marriage ceremony in his house therefore, he did not disclose the incident to anyone. He was suffering from body ache and when his mother inquired, he told her the entire incident.

¶12

In the statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS, the victim reiterated the F.I.R. version.

¶13

The medico-legal examination report of the victim mentions a contusion on left side of waist, abrasion over right shoulder, abrasion over left leg, Anal sphincter was increased and spasm was present and a canoe shaped healing ulcer is present at 6 O' clock position and the doctor gave opinion of acute anal fissure.

¶14

In the statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, the victim stated that the accused persons has taken him to at burial groundand the accused Ayan had committed the misdeed against him by sodomizing him. He got unconscious

¶15

BAIL No. 6618 of 2025

¶16

¶17

for 2-3 minutes. When he resumed consciousness, the applicant was putting his clothes.

¶18

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Ajij who was assigned the similar role has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 25.09.2025 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 9304 of 2025. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity with the order of the coaccused.

¶20

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application, however, could not dispute the fact that it is a case of parity.

¶21

Having regard to the bail order of co-accused Ajij; specific role assigned to the co-accused Ayan in the statement of the victim; general role has been assigned to the applicant, this Court is of the opinion that role assigned to the applicant is akin to co-accused Ayan.

¶22

Accordingly the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶23

Let the applicant involved in Case Crime No.137 of 2025, under Sections 140(4), 115(2), 352, 351(3) of BNS, registered at Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi, 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:-

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

(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.

¶27

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek

¶28

BAIL No. 6618 of 2025

¶29

¶30

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.

¶31

(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 in accordance with law.

¶32

(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. (now Section 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 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

¶33

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present anticipatory bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶34

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶35

November 6, 2025 R.C.

¶36

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

Naved v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naved v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Salim @ Mu Salim Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Vedant Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Yunus Khan @ Gappu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Hukumdutt Yadav @ Pawan Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Nand Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

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