Arun @ Amit vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

As per Office report dated 08.05.2026, notice has been served upon respondent nos. 2 and 3 in person but neither respondent nos. 2 and 3 are present nor any counsel has put in appearance their behalf.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶13

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 99 of 2025, under Sections 64(2) (m), 137(2), 87 BNS and Section 5j(ii)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Khodare, District-Gonda is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶14

The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. dated 30.04.2025 has been lodged under Section 137(2) & 87 BNS (old Sections 363 & 366 IPC) against the present applicant alleging therein that informant's fifteen years old daughter was enticed and eloped with the applicant by giving false promise of marriage. After recording statements of victim under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS, 2023, Section 64 (2)(m) and Section 5j(ii)/6 of POCSO Act have been added against the applicant.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the statement of victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS, 2023, no offence is made out against the applicant under Section 64 (2) of BNS, 2023 for the reason that victim in her statement has stated that she is 19

¶16

BAIL No. 2433 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

years old and she left the house on her own sweet will on 29.04.2025 at 12 o' clock. The applicant was not taking her but she forcibly asked him to take her to Panipat where they solemnized marriage on 30.04.2025 and she knew the applicant for last three years and she is under family way and she wants to live with the applicant.

¶19

It is further submitted that as per educational document, the age of the victim at the time of incident was 16 years, 3 months and 19 days and the relationship was consensual.

¶20

It is further submitted that the relationship between the applicant and the victim was consensual and the applicant is entitled for bail as per judgement of Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of Anash Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.7576 of 2025 dated 17.07.2025 , wherein allegations were made against the appellant therein under provisions of POCSO Act, in which, Hon'ble Supreme Court had granted interim protection to the applicant and the SLP was allowed while holding that there was a consensual relationship between the parties. He has also relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadashiv Ramarao Hadbe Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in (2006) 10 SCC, Page 92 and the judgment dated 16.07.2025 passed in the case of Birka Shiva vs. State of Telangana passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3007 of 2025, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1445/2025.

¶21

Reliance has further been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mahesh Mukund Patel Vs. State U.P. & others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 614) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has quashed the proceedings under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act on the ground that accused/appellant and victim have solemnized marriage and no useful purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution.

¶22

It is further submitted that the applicant has criminal history of one case filed by the same informant, in which, he has been enlarged on bail and he is in jail since 30.12.2025.

¶23

On the other hand learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but is unable to dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶24

BAIL No. 2433 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the record of the case and judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Anash (supra), Sadashiv Ramarao Hadbe (supra), Birka Shiva (supra) and Mahesh Mukund Patel (supra) , prima facie, it appears from the statement of victim recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS that she herself left the house in which the applicant has no role. Both of them have solemnized the marriage in Panipat on 30.04.2025 and victim is under family way and she wants to live with the applicant ; the relationship, prima facie, appears consensual and as per the aforesaid judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is a fit case in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶27

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed .

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶33

(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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

(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.

¶37

BAIL No. 2433 of 2026

¶38

4

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

May 25, 2026 Ashish

¶42

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶43

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arun @ Amit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun @ Amit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rijvana vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Juvenile X Thru. His Natural Guardian Mother vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Parmatma Rai vs Central Bureau of Investigation Acb Lucknow

Mohammad Sabir vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and 2 Others

Vijay vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

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