Aman vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in FIR/Case Crime No. 24 of 2026, Under Sections 69, 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, Police Station-Kotwali Sadar, District - Lakhimpur Kheri, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶13

The F.I.R. dated 09.01.2026 has been lodged under Sections 69, 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS (old Sections 323, 504 & 506 IPC) and after investigation the chargesheet has been filed under sections mentioned in the F.I.R. with the allegation that the applicant has outraged modesty of the informant on the pretext of false promise of marriage and after exploiting her refused to marry after five years of relationship.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is an admitted case of the informant that she was having a relationship with the applicant for last five years and in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, she has stated that the relationship is for last five to six years.

¶15

It is further submitted that the applicant had never given any false promise of marriage for developing physical relation with the informant for prolonged period of five to six years, so it cannot be said that the physical relationship was merely because of alleged promise of marriage. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Samadhan Sitatram Manmothe Vs. State of Maharasthra And Another reported in AIR Online 2025 SC 1099.

¶16

It is further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶17

On the other hand learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer and on the basis of instruction received has submitted that the statement

¶18

BAIL No. 2926 of 2026

¶19

2

¶20

given by the informant / victim is against the applicant, which made out a case against him and in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, she has stated that she is ready to marry with the applicant even today.

¶21

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, prima facie, it appears that as per the case of the informant / victim that she was in relationship with the applicant for prolonged period of five to six years and apparently it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical relation was because of alleged promise made by the applicant to marry her, therefore, it is a fit case in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶22

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.

¶23

Let the applicant Aman 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:-

¶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

(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.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

(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.

¶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

¶34

BAIL No. 2926 of 2026

¶35

3

¶36

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.

¶37

April 23, 2026 Nitesh

¶38

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶39

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

Aman v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman 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

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

Vijay Shankar Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Deepak @ Kanja vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Arpit Dubey @ Ankit vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Salma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.