Subhash vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

As per Office report dated 11.05.2026, notice has been served upon respondent nos. 2 and 3 but neither respondent nos. 2 and 3 are present nor any counsel has put in appearance on their behalf.

¶11

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

¶12

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 12 of 2026, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) BNS (old Sections 363, 366, 376(1) IPC) and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Asivan, DistrictUnnao is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶13

The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. dated 16.01.2026 has been lodged under Section 137(2), 87, 352, 351(3) BNS (old Sections 363, 376(1), 504, 506 IPC) against five named accused persons including the present applicant alleging therein that informant's seventeen years old daughter who had gone to school on 14.01.2026 at 09.30 AM was enticed and eloped away by Subhash i.e. the present applicant.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the statement of victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS, 2023, wherein she has stated that she knew the applicant from last four years. She had gone along with the applicant and they have solemnized the marriage in Kalika Mandir and started living as husband and wife and even today, she wants to live with the applicant.

¶15

It is further submitted that as per educational document, the age of the victim at the time of incident was about 17 years and that of the applicant was 17 years and the relationship was consensual.

¶16

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

¶17

BAIL No. 2618 of 2026

¶18

2

¶19

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.

¶20

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 01.02.2026..

¶21

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.

¶22

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) and Birka Shiva (supra) , prima facie, it appears from the statement of victim recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS wherein she has stated that she knew the applicant from last four years. She had gone along with the applicant and they have solemnized the marriage in Kalika Mandir and started living as husband and wife and even today, 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.

¶23

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.

¶24

Let the applicant Subhash 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:-

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶29

(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

¶30

BAIL No. 2618 of 2026

¶31

3

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

(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.

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

May 27, 2026 Nitesh

¶39

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶40

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Subhash v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home 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

Dhiru Awasthi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Pintu Mishra @ Chandra Prakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko.

Kamal Patel vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

V.P. Alias Kaushal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

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

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