Dhananjay vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the minor daughter of the informant, aged about 16 years, was enticed away by the applicant on 15.01.2026 at about 4:00 p.m.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim had gone away with the applicant of her own volition and free will, which is evident from the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS. It is further submitted that in the said statements there is no allegation whatsoever against the applicant. Learned counsel contends that there is no corroborative material available on record in support of the prosecution case. It is also submitted that as per the school record, the age of the victim is shown to be 17 years, and no radiological test for determination of her age has been conducted. The applicant is stated to be languishing in jail since 09.01.2026 and has no criminal antecedents.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

BAIL No. 1173 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

Having considered the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, the lack of corroborative medical evidence, and the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, coupled with the circumstance that the applicant is languishing in jail since 09.01.2026 without having any criminal antecedents, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant Dhananjay , involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 19/2026, Under Sections 87/137(2) BNS, Police Station Maigalganj, DistrictLakhimpur Kheri, be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶20

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶21

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶22

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

¶23

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.

¶24

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.

¶25

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶26

March 11, 2026

¶27

R.C.

¶28

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

Dhananjay v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhananjay v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Similar cases

Mr. Saleem Anwar Khan and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Medical Health) Lko. and 3 Others

Varsha Rawat vs Distt. Magistrate Distt. Pratapgarh and 3 Others

Satendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Rural Development Lko and 5 Others

S.I. Om Prakash Singh (PNO-902461709) vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Tanveer @ Sebu vs State of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Bablu Yadav @ Bablu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.