Shobhit @ Monu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

On a query being put, Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned AGA submitted that he has complete instructions in the matter and is ready to argue the case on merits, as such the Court proceeded to hear the instant application seeking bail on merits.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶13

The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.812 of 2025, under Sections- 64(1), 316(2), 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station-Kheri, District- Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶14

While pressing the present application, the learned counsel for the applicant stated that the FIR dated 08.11.2025, registered at Police StationKheri, District- Lakhimpur Kheri, was lodged by the husband of the victim against the applicant, namely, Shobhit and three other accused persons, namely, Jadish, Anup and wife of Anup. It has been alleged in the F.I.R that the applicant, with the help of other co-accused persons had enticed away the informant's wife aged 26 years on 04.11.2025. It is further alleged that the victim had left her matrimonial house with Rs.40,000/- cash along with a gold earnings, anklets etc.

¶15

It is further submitted that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R are completely false and concocted and the same could be ascertained from the copy of part of case diary annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the present bail application. This part of case diary is based upon the application dated

¶16

BAIL No. 433 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

08.11.2025 moved by the victim before the In-charge, P.S. Kheri. Accordingly to this document the victim herself had left her matrimonial home on 04.11.2025 with the applicant and on 05.11.2025, she reached her parental house. It is submitted that the aforesaid application was preferred by the victim on 08.11.2025 upon coming to know about the lodging of he F.I.R, which was lodged with a delay of four days, making bogus allegations against the applicant and other accused persons despite the victim having left her matrimonial home on her own free will.

¶19

It is further submitted that the victim aged 26 years has changed her stand and levelled allegations against the applicant to support the prosecution story including the allegations regarding establishing physical relations at Lucknow.

¶20

It is further submitted that in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S (a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure No.3 to the present bail application), indicates that under pressure of the applicant, the victim reached Lucknow from Kheri without raising any alarm and stayed in a hotel on 04.11.2025. Thereafter, the applicant also established physical relation with the victim and this statement further indicates that the informant made a call to the applicant on 05.11.2025 and thereafter, in response to the same, the applicant left the victim at Police Station Oyal, who was in possession of the entire jewellery and also of Rs. 40,000/- cash.

¶21

It is further submitted that in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S (a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure No.4 to the present bail application), also indicates that the victim has changed her initial statement/version.

¶22

It is also stated that a conjoint reading of the statements of victim and the contents of the application dated 08.11.2025, part of case diary, preferred by the victim indicates that at later stage the victim has mere narrated the correct facts. Thus, the prosecution case is not intact.

¶23

It is further submitted that in these circumstances, the present application is liable to be allowed and the applicant may be enlarged on bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial and would also not influence the prosecution witnesses.

¶24

BAIL No. 433 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail, however he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the applicant.

¶27

Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A., the content of the F.I.R. as also the fact that the F.I.R was lodged with a delay of four days and the statement(s) of the victim recorded under Section(s) 180 and 183 B.N.S.S., and also the part of the case dairy according to which the victim herself had left her matrimonial home and also that there is no medical evidence available to established its case before the trial court, as also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 20.11.2025, this Court finds that the present application is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

¶28

Let the applicant- Shobhit @ Monu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties (one of family member/close relative) each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to 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

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

¶32

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶33

(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.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

(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.

¶37

BAIL No. 433 of 2026

¶38

4

¶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

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶42

January 27, 2026 Preeti

¶43

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shobhit @ Monu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobhit @ Monu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Sunita Gautam @ Nasreen vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohit Kumar @ Kaka vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Arjun Bhargava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Juvenile Delinquent v Thru. His Father X vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Mohammad Yasin vs Sri Upendra Gupta Basic Shiksha Adhikari Distt. Sultanpur and Another

Sandeep vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko