Allowed

Surru @ Ishrar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Nov 2025NABAIL/1592/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued notice and granted adinterim anticipatory bail to the applicant accused of enticing a minor girl under BNS and POCSO Act. The court relied on the victim's statement under Section 180 BNSS, where she stated she went out of her own free will, to justify interim protection subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Adinterim anticipatory bail granted subject to personal bond, sureties of Rs. 5,000, cooperation with investigation, no inducement to witnesses, and no leaving India without permission.

Surru @ Ishrar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1592 of 2025

Surru @ Ishrar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And 3 Others

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 12

¶10

HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

¶11

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

¶12

The present application has been filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in FIR No.180 of 2025, under Sections 64(1) BNS and Section 3/4 (2) of POCSO Act, Police Station Ramkot, District Sitapur.

¶13

In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the daughter of the informant aged about 14 years was enticed by the applicant. It was also stated that around one year ago also, she had enticed by the applicant, in which the applicant was enlarged on bail vide order dated 08.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc Bail Application No.7258 of 2024. In the statement under Section 180 BNSS, the victim did not support the prosecution case and stated that she had gone out of her own freewill. However, in the statement under Section 183 BNSS, the victim accepted that she was taken by the applicant to Lucknow and stayed there for a period of two months.

¶14

In the light of said, learned counsel for the applicant argues that he apprehends arrest despite the victim is not supporting the prosecution story.

¶15

Considering the statement of victim under Section 180 BNSS, the case for adinterim anticipatory bail is made out.

¶16

Issue notice.

¶17

Steps to be taken to serve the opposite party no.2 within a week.

¶18

List after six weeks.

¶19

In the meanwhile, objections may be filed.

¶20

NABAIL No. 1592 of 2025

¶21

¶22

As an interim measure, it is provided that in case the applicant is arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing personal bond and sureties of Rs.5,000/- to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned subject to the following condition:

¶23

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and will co-operate with investigation;

¶24

(ii) 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 and

¶25

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶26

November 3, 2025 Renu/-

¶27

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Surru @ Ishrar 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?

Surru @ Ishrar 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?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Samraj Vs Central Bureau of Investigation /Anti Corruption Bureau Lko.

Haseeb Vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others

Sarfaraz Ali Jafri Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Rinie Banerjee (Ppo No. 304) vs Dr. Mahendra Dev, Director of Education (Madhyamik) Allahabad PIN-211002

Anurag Shukla vs Commercial Court Lko. and 4 Others

Smt. Shivani Shukla vs Sri Ashutosh Pandey, Tehsildar-Taraganj Distt. Gonda