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

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 540 of 2025, under sections 65 (1), 137 (2), 87 of the B.N.S. (old sections 376 (3), 363, 366 of IPC) and Section 5(J)(2)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Lalganj, District- Raebareli is seeking enlargement on bail.

¶14

Brief facts of the present case are that an FIR dated 05.12.2025 has been lodged under Sections 137 (2) and 87 of BNS, 2023 against the applicant alleging therein that the applicant enticed daughter of informant, who is aged about 15 years and 6 months, as per Aadhar Card, and eloped with her on 01/02.12.2025. After the statement of alleged victim/prosecutrix recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS, 2023, Sections 65 (1)of BNSS, 2023 and Section 5(J)(2)/6 of POCSO Act have been added.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the reading of statements of alleged victim/prosecutrix recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, 2023, it has come out that the allegation made against the applicant is a complete lie for the reason that the alleged victim/prosecutrix in her statement has stated that she knew applicant for last one year and she wanted to marry with the applicant and when she told this fact to her parents, they opposed the same, so she left the house and gone with the applicant and after few days she solemnized marriage with the applicant and now she is two months pregnant. She has also stated that she had gone with the

¶16

BAIL No. 3328 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

applicant on her own sweet will and the applicant had never made any forcible sexual relation with her and she wanted to live with the applicant.

¶19

It has lastly been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 10.03.2026.

¶20

On the other hand, Learned Additional Government Advocate on the basis of instructions received has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the applicant. Although, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 on the basis of short counter affidavit filed today has submitted that victim wants to marry with the applicant and victim and deponent have no objection, if the applicant is released on bail. The said fact is mentioned in para nos. 5 to 8 of the short counter affidavit.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the short counter affidavit filed today on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3, prima-facie, it is found that the alleged victim/prosecutrix on her own sweet will left the house when her parents refused to marry with the applicant; she has also stated that applicant had never committed wrong thing with her; hence, it is a fit case in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶22

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶23

Let the applicant Suraj be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her 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

¶30

BAIL No. 3328 of 2026

¶31

3

¶32

fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶33

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

¶34

(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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

May 12, 2026

¶38

Ashish

¶39

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶40

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

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

Arbaz @ Mohd. Arbaz vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Rawat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ali Ahmad @ Nanke vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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