Jeeshan Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2088 of 2026

Jeeshan Ahmad

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Saurabh Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 13

¶7

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶8

The case was listed on 24.03.2026, but the same was adjourned as the notices were served upon the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, two days ago.

¶9

Today also, neither the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are present nor any counsel has put in appearance on their behalf.

¶10

Learned A.G.A has provided the copy of the report provided by the Investigating Officer regarding service of notice upon opposite party nos. 2 and 3, which is taken on record.

¶11

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

¶12

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 15 of 2026, under Sections 64(1), 87 B.N.S, Police Station Baldirai, District- Sultanpur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶13

The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. dated 13.01.2026 was lodged against unknown persons under Section 87 B.N.S. (old Section 366 I.P.C.). Subsequently, Section 64 B.N.S. (old Section 376 I.P.C.) was also added, alleging therein that the husband of the informant resides outside the village for livelihood. On 05.01.2026, the informant had gone to the fields and when she returned home, she found her daughter missing. After searching for her, she suspected that someone had enticed her daughter and she also found that her daughter had left the house along with ornaments and cash.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons and the name of the applicant surfaced for the first

¶15

BAIL No. 2088 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

time in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereas in her statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., she did not make any allegation against the applicant.

¶18

It is further submitted that though allegations of outraging modesty have been made, the victim refused to undergo internal medical examination.

¶19

It is also submitted that a missing report of her daughter was lodged by the informant with an unexplained delay of eight days. It is further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has no previous criminal history and is in jail since 06.02.2026.

¶20

Per contra, learned A.G.A., on the basis of instructions received, has vehemently opposed the bail application, but he could not dispute the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶21

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the allegations, the fact that the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons with an unexplained delay of eight days, the fact that when the victim returned home on 27.01.2026, the applicant was not named in the statements of the victim as well as the informant under Section 180 B.N.S.S; however, the victim stated that she had left her home because she was annoyed with her family members and that she stayed in a tenanted room; the fact that the name of the applicant surfaced for the first time in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S and subsequently Section 64(1) B.N.S. was added; as also the fact that the victim refused to undergo internal medical examination. According to the F.I.R, the victim had taken away jewellery and cash along with her at the time of leaving her home.

¶22

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

¶23

Let the applicant Jeeshan Ahmad be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶24

(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶28

BAIL No. 2088 of 2026

¶29

3

¶30

(v) 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.

¶31

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶32

(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶33

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶34

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶35

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this order.

¶36

April 2, 2026 DiVYa

¶37

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶38

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jeeshan Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeeshan Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 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

Pradeep Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Kamlesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

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

Gangaram @ Chotakke vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Soorya Kali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and 2 Others

Angad Gaud vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko.