Ajay Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8795 of 2025

Ajay Kumar Patel

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

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

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mamta Raj, Deepak Rawat, Santosh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 12

¶8

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶9

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

¶10

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.205 of 2025, under Section 69,351(2) BNS, Police Station Sidhauli, District Sitapur.

¶11

It is alleged that on the pretext of marriage, the informant was sexually exploited by the applicant. When she asked him to marry her, he refused and allegedly threatened to post objectionable photographs of her on social media. The relationship between them lasted for about four years, during which both were working in the Apna Dal S. Party office.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim is 30 years old and a major, and the relationship between the parties was consensual and continued for four years. It is not the prosecution case that from the very inception, the applicant had made a promise to marry her without the intention to fulfill that promise or the applicant had any intention to marry her in a deceitful means. There is also a lack of medical or other corroborative evidence. The applicant has been in custody since 24.7.2025.

¶13

It is further submitted that there is no likelihood of the applicant absconding or tampering with witnesses if released on bail. In case he is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

BAIL No. 8795 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer and submitted that the applicant was already married and the father of two children; therefore, from the very beginning, he could not have had any intention to marry the victim.

¶17

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the case diary.

¶18

On due consideration to the statement of the wife of the applicant Preeti Patel; lack of corroborative evidence; the applicant has no criminal history; FIR has been lodged after delay of 4 years; prima facie the ingredients under Section 69 BNS are missing and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant Ajay Kumar Patel be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions:

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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,

¶26

BAIL No. 8795 of 2025

¶27

3

¶28

without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS).

¶29

(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 of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS).

¶30

September 15, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S

¶31

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ajay Kumar Patel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Patel 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

Vijay Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ramkhelawan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ajay Kumar Patel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Naresh Kumar Agarwal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Lko. and Another