Swami Nath vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.72 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) of BNS and Sections 5/6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Baldirai, District Sultanpur.

¶13

In the prosecution case it is alleged that minor daughter of the informant aged about 16 years went away from home to give examination of Class-IX on 02.04.2025 at about 08:30 am however, she did not return till evening. It is further alleged that one person of the village has enticed her away.

¶14

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that victim while giving statement under Section 180 BNSS has denied the prosecution case. She has told that she on her own accord went away from home to Dehli Bazar and then to Sultanpur and from there to Delhi. In the statement under Section 183 BNSS, improvement has been made however, love relationship with the applicant has been admitted. She wanted to marry the applicant however, her family members threatened her, therefore, she went away on her own accord met with applicant in Dehli Bazar and from there she went to Delhi and live together however, they have not married. Medico legal examination has been refused by the victim. No ossification test of the victim has been conducted. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 26.06.2025.

¶15

BAIL No. 9227 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer and submits that as per the school record victim is minor.

¶18

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.06.2025 having no criminal history, charge-sheet has been filed, improvement has been made in the proseution case, statement of the victim under Sections 180 & 183 BNSS, refusal to undergo medical examination 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 Swami Nath be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court 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, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 269 of BNS).

¶26

(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 Indian Panel Code (now Section 209 BNS).

¶27

September 23, 2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶28

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶29

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

Swami Nath v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swami Nath v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Babloo Saroj @ Ajeet Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dharmendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Vikas Babu Joshi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Mohd. Umair (as Per Fir Mohd. Umar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Shivam vs State of U.P. thru Secretary Home Departmen and 3 others

Sanjay Kumar vs State of U.P. thru Secretary Home Department