Tazkeer Alam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No.124/2026, Under Sections 69 BNS, 2023 (initially 87 of BNS, 2023), Police Station - Fatehpur, District - Barabanki, is seeking enlargement on bail.

¶13

The brief facts of the present case are that an FIR dated 25.03.2026 under Section 87 BNS, 2023 has been lodged against the applicant alleging therein that 28 years old sister of the informant left the house on 05.03.2026 without informing anyone. On being inquired, it is found that the applicant enticed her and eloped with her.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that after recording the statement of victim under Section 183 BNSS, 2023, Section 87 of BNS, 2023 has been dropped while adding Section 69 of BNS, 2023 against the applicant.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the FIR has been lodged with an unexplained delay of 20 days from the date of alleged incident.

¶16

It is further submitted that victim in her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS has stated that she left her home after fighting with her brother for Chandigarh where she had worked. She shared accommodation with a girl in Chandigarh. After sometime, she called her brother in law (bahnoi), then she came to know that some FIR has been lodged so, she returned back. In her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, she had come

¶17

BAIL No. 2967 of 2026

¶18

2

¶19

with a new case that she knew the applicant from last one and a half year and they had physical relationship also in Chandigarh where she lived with the applicant for 7 to 8 days. Applicant had promised her for marriage but now he is not ready for the same.

¶20

It is further submitted that victim is a major lady and she continued in this relationship for last one and a half years, so it cannot be said that the applicant by giving false promise of marriage exploited her physically by establishing physical relationship forcibly.

¶21

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 one and a half 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 Maharastra and Another reported in AIR Online 2025 SC 1099 .

¶22

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

¶23

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 given by the victim is against the applicant, which made out a case against him but unable to dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶24

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the record of the case and judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Samadhan Sitatram Manmothe (supra) , prima facie, it appears that as per the case of the prosecution particularly victim that she was in love and physical relationship with the applicant for prolonged period of one and a half 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, FIR has been lodged with an unexplained delay of 20 days therefore, it is a fit case in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶25

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.

¶26

Let the applicant Tazkeer Alam 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

¶27

BAIL No. 2967 of 2026

¶28

3

¶29

conditions:-

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶34

(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.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

(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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

April 24, 2026 Ashish

¶41

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶42

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

Tazkeer Alam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tazkeer Alam 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

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.

Ram Bali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

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

Mr. X Accused/ Revisionist Case Crime No. 93 of 2025 P.S. N.M.P.T. Distt. Shravasti vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.