Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47652

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7493 of 2025

Applicant :- Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Vishwakarma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bisunbablu Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. Despite service of notice, as informed by the learned AGA, none appears on behalf of the complainant.

¶7

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 26.04.2025 at about 8:00 p.m., the minor daughter of the informant, aged about 16 years, went missing from home.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in her statement under Section 180 BNSS, the victim stated that she is 20 years old and she of her own accord went away with the applicant and married him in a temple. No allegations were made by the victim under Section 180 BNSS. As per the radiological examination, the victim was found to be 18 years old. In her statement under Section 183 BNSS, she stated that she is 19 years old, has known the applicant for the last eight years, admitted her relationship with him, and further stated that she of her own accord went away and married the applicant. She also refused to undergo medical examination. The applicant is in custody since 30.05.2025 and has no criminal antecedents.

¶9

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged

¶10

on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

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.

¶12

Upon due consideration of the victim’s statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, which indicate that she is a major and a consenting party, coupled with the absence of corroborative medical evidence and the fact that the applicant is in custody since 30.05.2025 without any criminal history, this Court finds it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Vishwakarma involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 112/2025, under Sections 137(2)/87/64(1) of BNS and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Maohanganj, District - Amethi, 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case

¶20

of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

(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).

¶22

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 :- 14.8.2025

¶23

R.C.

¶24

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

Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

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

Aman @ Aman Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Pawan Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Agriculture Lko. and 4 Others

Ritesh Mittal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Shiva Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Raj Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P.