Karan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed an impleadment application (which is also taken on record) seeking impleadment of the victim as respondent no. 5 in the array of respondents.

¶10

Cause shown in the accompanying affidavit filed in support of the instant application is sufficient.

¶11

Learned AGA has no objection in impleading the victim in the array of respondents.

¶12

In view of above, the impleadment application is allowed.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to implead/incorporate the victim in the array of respondents as respondent no. 5 during course of day.

¶14

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 38 of 2026, under Sections 64(2), 137(2), 87 BNS (old Sections 376, 363 & 366 IPC), Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Naseerabad, DistrictRaebareli is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶15

The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. dated 15.02.2026 has been lodged under Section 137(2) & 87 BNS (old Sections 363 & 366 IPC) against one named accused persons including the present applicant alleging therein that the applicant enticed and eloped away with 16 year old daughter of the informant along with Rs. 12,000/- cash with the help of co-accused Rajwanta.

¶16

BAIL No. 3748 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

After recording the statement of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, Sections 64(2) BNS and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act have been added.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had neither enticed away nor eloped with the daughter of the informant.

¶20

It is further submitted that the statements given by the alleged victim under Sections 180 & 183 BNSS, 2023 were in favour of the applicant but the same are not available, hence it is not filed along with the present bail application.

¶21

On being asked from the learned AGA as to whether he has received the copy of the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 & 183 BNSS, he has replied that the copies of the statements are available with the instructions and has submitted that the victim has given the statements in favour of the applicant stating therein that she herself left her house in which the applicant has no role. Both of them have solemnized the marriage and are living as husband and wife. The copies of the statements have been produced during course of argument by learned AGA.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the informant and the victim have also given an affidavit before the POCSO court stating therein that the marriage of the alleged victim was fixed with the applicant and since then, she is in touch with the applicant and is in love with the applicant. The applicant is the nephew of the brother in law (jija) of the alleged victim and the jija was against the marriage and when the parents of the victim asked to break the marriage which the alleged victim resented and left the house on her own sweet will to live with the applicant.

¶23

It is further submitted before the POCSO court on affidavit it has been stated that the applicant has not committed any offence of outraging the modesty of the victim.

¶24

It is further submitted that the relationship between the applicant and the victim was consensual and the applicant is entitled for bail as per judgement of Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of Anash Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.7576 of 2025 dated 17.07.2025 allegation under provisions of POCSO Act were also made, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court had granted interim protection to the applicant and the SLP was allowed while holding that there was a consensual relationship between the parties. He has also relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadashiv Ramarao Hadbe Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in (2006) 10 SCC, Page 92 and the judgment dated 16.07.2025 passed in the case of Birka Shiva vs. State of Telangana passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3007 of 2025, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1445/2025.

¶25

It is further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is in jail since 19.03.2026.

¶26

On the other hand learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but is

¶27

BAIL No. 3748 of 2026

¶28

3

¶29

unable to dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 5 has submitted that the applicant is not responsible for eloping with the daughter of the informant and now both of them are married and are living happily as husband and wife. He has submitted that the affidavits have already been filed by the complainant and the victim before the POCSO court. The copies of which have been filed along with the present application.

¶31

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, prima facie, it appears from the statement of victim recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS that she herself left the house in which the applicant has no role. Both of them have solemnized the marriage and are living as husband and wife. She had gone with the applicant on her own sweet will and there is no allegation against the applicant of outraging her modesty; the relationship, prima facie, appears consensual and as per the aforesaid judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is a fit case in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶32

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed .

¶33

Let the applicant Karan 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:-

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶38

(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.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

BAIL No. 3748 of 2026

¶42

4

¶43

(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.

¶44

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.

¶45

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.

¶46

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶47

May 25, 2026

¶48

Nitesh

¶49

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

Karan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 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

Mehtaab Hashmi @ Mehtaab @ Mahtaab vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

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

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

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

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

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