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

By means of the present bail application, the applicant, who is involved in case crime No. 93 of 2025, under Sections 87, 64 & 115(2) of B.N.S., 2023 (corresponding Sections 366, 376 & 323 IPC), Police Station Dileep Pur, District Pratapgarh is seeking enlargement on bail.

¶11

Brief facts of this case are that an FIR dated 30.05.2025 has been lodged by the informant under Section 87 B.N.S., 2023 (corresponding Section 366 IPC) against two named accused persons including the present applicant alleging therein that on 28.05.2025 at around 08.00 PM, the applicant and another accused person enticed the 24 years old daughter of the informant and ran away with her.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that after the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 & 183 BNSS, Sections 64 & 115(2) of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding Sections 376 & 323 IPC) have been added.

¶13

It is further submitted that the victim in her statement under Sections 180 & 183 BNSS has made a statement against the co-accused Pradeep Kumar for establishing physical relationship forcibly and there is no allegation in the statements of the victim with regard to establishing forcible physical relationship with her by the present applicant.

¶14

It is further submitted that the co-accused (Pradeep Kumar) has already been granted bail by this Court by passing an order dated 18.12.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12672 of 2025. The copy of the bail order of the co-accused (Pradeep Kumar) has been enclosed as Annexure No. 9 to the paper book. The bail has been granted on the grounds that the victim is around 24 years of age and the victim in her statement has submitted that the applicant therein (Pradeep Kumar) was refusing to marry her and also that the applicant (Pradeep Kumar) used to visit her.

¶15

BAIL No. 2696 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 17.10.2025.

¶18

On the other hand, learned AGA on the basis of instructions received opposed the prayer for bail but unable to dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no allegation of outraging the modesty of the victim by the applicant.

¶19

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and going through record of the case, prima facie, it appears that there is no allegation of outraging the modesty of the victim by the applicant as per the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 & 183 BNSS; the coaccused (Pradeep Kumar) has already been granted bail by this Court by order dated 18.12.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12672 of 2025, thus, prima facie, the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

¶20

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶21

Let the applicant- Mukesh Kumar 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:-

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶26

(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.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

(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.

¶30

BAIL No. 2696 of 2026

¶31

3

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶35

April 16, 2026

¶36

Nitesh

¶37

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

Mukesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Pankaj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Om Prakash Tiwari and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Mukesh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Ramdutt Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.