Rahul Pratap vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Shri Dheeraj Awasthi, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 alongwith short counter affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicant,learned AGA for the State and Shri Dheeraj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶13

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 43 of 2026, under sections 64 (1), 137 (2), 87 of the BNS and (old sections 376, 363, 366 IPC) and under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Bhadhokhar, DistrictRaebareli is seeking enlargement on bail.

¶14

The brief facts of the present case are that on 07.02.2026, an FIR has been lodged under Sections 137 (2) and 87 of BNS, 2023 (old Sections 363 and 366 of IPC) by the informant against unknown person and his mother alleging therein that on 04.02.2026 some unknown boy after enticing her 16 years old daughter eloped with her and in that his mother is also involved. It is further alleged therein that his daughter eloped with jewellery and cash.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that after the statement of victim recorded under Section 180 and 183 of BNSS, 2023, Section 64 (1) of BNS, 2023 (old Section 376 of IPC) has been added against the applicant.

¶16

It is further submitted that victim neither in her statement made under Section 180 of BNSS, 2023 nor in statement of 183 of BNSS, 2023 has made any allegation of outraging her modesty by applicant rather she has made statement that she herself gone to the house of applicant at Kannauj as he was not well and she lived there for a month and solemnized marriage with him as per Hindu rituals and was living happily as his wife.

¶17

It is further submitted that the victim has denied for her medical examination which

¶18

BAIL No. 3169 of 2026

¶19

2

¶20

could be ascertained from report of C.M.O. wherein it has been mentioned that prosecutrix refused for medico legal examination.

¶21

It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 01.03.2026.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that short counter affidavit is sworn by informant i.e. father of victim and made a statement on oath that his daughter was in love with applicant and she had gone to Kannauj to meet the applicant on her own free will and they have also solemnized marriage. After coming to know about lodging of an FIR his daughter has returned home.

¶23

It is further submitted that she was 16 years 9 months and 19 days old at the time of incident and he is of the view that his daughter should marry the person with whom she is in love of her own free will and he does not want to ruin her life.

¶24

Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2 and 3 has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mahesh Mukund Patel Vs. State U.P. & others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 614) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has quashed the proceedings under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act on the ground that accused/appellant and victim have solemnized marriage and no useful purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution.

¶25

On the other hand, learned AGA on the basis of instructions received has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but unable to dispute the submissions advanced on behalf of applicant and respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶26

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the record of the case and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Mahesh Mukund Patel (supra), prima-facie, it is found that victim herself gone to the house of applicant at Kannauj; from the statement of victim under Section 183 BNSS, 2023, it appears that both of them have solemnized marriage; informant i.e. father of victim, who has sworn the short counter affidavit as deponent also made an averment on oath that he wanted to fulfill the will/desire of her daughter; applicant has no criminal history, thus, prima-facie, the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

¶27

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶28

Let the applicant- Rahul Pratap 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:-

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

BAIL No. 3169 of 2026

¶32

3

¶33

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

¶34

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶35

(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.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

(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.

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

May 1, 2026

¶42

Ashish

¶43

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶44

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

Rahul Pratap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Pratap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Kari Chand Aalam @ Chand Aalam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mishri Lal @ Mishri Lal Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neelam Devi @ Neelam Tiwari in Fir vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Hassan Khan (in the First Fir as Hassan ) vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

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