Shankar @ Golu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

First bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 483 BNSS with regard to FIR No. 24/2026 under Sections 137(2), 87 BNS, Police Station Kotwali Gola, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶12

As per contents of First Information Report, incident is said to have taken place on 16.01.2026 at about 09.00 A.M. when the informant's daughter Shivani, aged about 18 years and Kajal, daughter of Ramu, aged about 15 years were enticed away from their house. Suspicion has been cast upon two persons named in the F.I.R which does not contain name of applicant.

¶13

Learned counsel for applicant submits that he is not named in the F.I.R. and was introduced subsequently on the basis of statement of alleged victim in which she has clearly denied the allegations levelled against applicant and has indicated that she went with her own volition with the applicant. It is therefore submitted that the provisions of Sections imputed against applicant are not made out. It is submitted that the applicant without any previous criminal history is under incarceration since 25.01.2026.

¶14

Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed bail with submission that statement of victim who is 15 years of age clearly indicates the aspect that applicant took her away from custody of a

¶15

BAIL No. 2434 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

natural guardian without any permission and therefore the Sections impugned are clearly made out. It is however admitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶18

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, at this stage, without entering into the merits of case and subject to evidence in trial, it appears that applicant was not named in the F.I.R. and was introduced after the statement of victim recorded under Section 180 BNSS and 183 BNSS in which she has stated that she went away voluntarily with the applicant. The aspect therefore of imputing Sections against applicant would require to be established by evidence during the course of trial particularly since the victim does not appear to have supported the prosecution version. The applicant without any previous criminal history is under incarceration since 25.01.2026 and is only 20 years of age and therefore, keeping in view the aspect of reform, application is liable to be allowed.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, without commenting on merits and subject to evidence, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail.

¶20

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let applicant involved in aforesaid 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(iii) 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶25

BAIL No. 2434 of 2026

¶26

3

¶27

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶28

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

¶29

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of ball during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

¶30

Pending applications if any too stand disposed of.

¶31

April 8, 2026 lakshman

¶32

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shankar @ Golu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar @ Golu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Atul Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

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

Suneel Lohar @ Sunil and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Amrish Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Lakshan Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko.