Ritik Kannaujiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8641 of 2025

¶3

Ritik Kannaujiya

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Kr. Sharma, Arshad Hafeez Khan, Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 12

¶6

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶7

Despite the notice having been served, none appears for the complainant.

¶8

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

¶9

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the minor daughter of the informant aged about 13 years, who came home one month ago during school vacation, has been enticed away by someone on 22.06.2025.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent. In the statement of victim under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S, no allegation of rape has been levelled by the victim against the applicant. She has not supported the prosecution case at all. The medico-legal examination of the victim has been refused by the father of the victim. As per the ossification test, the victim is 15 years of age. He further submits that it is a case of false implication and there is lack of corroborative medical evidence.

¶11

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 06.07.2025. 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 on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, the statement of the victim in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS so also the fact that there is lack of corroborative medical evidence; the

¶14

BAIL No. 8641 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

father of the victim refused for medico legal examination of the victime; there appears to be no chance of tampering the prosecution evidence coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history; he is languishing in jail since 06.07.2024 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶17

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant- Ritik Kannaujiya, involved in Case Crime No. 259 of 2025, under Sections 65(1), 137(2), 87 of B.N.S. & Section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act 2012, Police Station- Ram Sanehi Ghat, District- Barabanki, 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 84 B.N.S.S. 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 209 of B.N.S.

¶25

September 10, 2025 DiVYa

¶26

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ritik Kannaujiya v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritik Kannaujiya v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. 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

Mukesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Visheshwar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrett. Lko.

Mohd. Afzal Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Brijesh Yadav @ Anil Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ritik Kannaujiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others