Navneet Raj vs State of U.P.

Heard Sri Vikas Mani Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri J.K. Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

¶11

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 357 of 2025, arising out of FIR No.357 of 2025, under Sections 69/115(2)/351(3)/316(2) BNS, Police Station Crossing Republic, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶12

PROSECUTION STORY:

¶13

The allegations in the FIR that applicant spiked the cold drink of the victim and established corporeal relation with her on the false promise of marriage and video-recorded the said act and kept on blackmailing her. The applicant subsequently refused to comply with the said promise.

¶14

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

¶15

The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed, as the said relationship is stated to have continued for a period of about six years.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is

¶17

BAIL No. 13879 of 2026

¶18

2

¶19

absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. As per ossification test report, the age of the victim has come out to be 31 years. There is no clinching evidence to suggest that the applicant misled the victim from the beginning. There is no recovery of any video, whatsoever. The informant has converted a failed consensual physical relationship into a criminal case.

¶20

Learned counsel has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.1.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶21

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:

¶22

The bail application has been opposed but the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant has not been disputed.

¶23

CONCLUSION:

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, there being no clinching evidence to suggest that the applicant misled the victim from the beginning; there being no recovery of any video of the victim and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶25

Let the applicant- Navneet Raj, who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶26

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

¶27

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶28

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶29

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶30

BAIL No. 13879 of 2026

¶31

3

¶32

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶33

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶34

May 12, 2026

¶35

Shalini

¶36

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Navneet Raj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navneet Raj v. State of U.P.

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

Zaif Ali vs State of U.P.

Anand vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanny vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandresh Yadav vs State of U.P.

Jogendra vs State of U.P.

Dinesh vs State of U.P.