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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44740

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7032 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Surjeet Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Sumit Chauhan,Pratibha Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

A supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

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

¶9

In the present case, it is alleged that the minor daughter of the complainant, aged approximately 14 years and employed at a brick kiln, was enticed away by the applicant along with other co-accused persons.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim, in her statement recorded under Section 181 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), did not support the prosecution version. She stated that she voluntarily went with the applicant to Nepal, where they got married. Furthermore, in her statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), she reiterated that she had accompanied the applicant of her own free will, stayed with him for 8-10 days, and subsequently married him on 26th, May. No radiological examination of the victim was conducted. According to school records, her age is 13 years, 11 months, and 29 days, whereas in her statement she claims to be 15 years old.

¶11

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or

¶12

tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

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.

¶14

Perused the record.

¶15

A perusal of the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS shows that the allegation of enticement is absent. Prima facie, it appears that the victim voluntarily accompanied the applicant, and the prosecution case is not supported by any corroborative medical evidence.

¶16

On due consideration to the observation made herein above, the filing of the charge sheet, and the fact that the applicant is in custody since 05.06.2025, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be released on bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant Surjeet Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 239/2025, under Sections 87/137(2)/351(2) of BNS, Police Station - Mailani, District - Kheri, 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:-

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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).

¶25

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. Order Date :- 1.8.2025

¶26

R.C.

¶27

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjeet Kumar 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

Thakara Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Maneesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy, Deptt. of Home Lko.

Durga Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Deepesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. and Another

Babi @ Shakir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Abhishek Singh @ Sholey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.