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

As per letter of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi dated 19.02.2026, the basis of the office report dated 25.02.2026, the service of notice upon the opposite party Nos.2 and 5 is sufficient. However, when the case is taken up, none appeared to oppose the present bail application. In these circumstances, the Court proceeded to decide the case finally.

¶10

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

¶11

The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in FIR/Case Crime No.0363/2025, under Sections 333, 70(2) of BNS and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act and Section 67 of the IT Act, Police Station - Harpalpur, District - Hardoi.

¶12

While pressing the instant application, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the case of the prosecution as indicated in the F.I.R. is completely false, concocted and bogus.

¶14

It is next submitted that co-accused Arvind has already been enlarged on

¶15

BAIL No. 558 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

bail by this Court vide order dated 18.12.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12686 of 2025. The order, referred, is extracted herein under :-

¶18

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. None has appeared for the informant despite notice.

¶19

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No. 363 of 2025, under sections 333, 70(2) BNS, Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Harpalpur, District Hardoi.

¶20

3. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that in terms of FIR it was alleged that a video was seen on social media in which sister of informant was wronged by various persons and when she was asked she informed that the applicant came to home and commit wrong on her sometimes in the October 2024. It is also stated that other person who are present there also forced to commit wrong on her. She also stated that on 1.11.2025 when she was called and she refused threats were issued by the applicant. In the light of the said allegations learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no recovery of any video as alleged in the FIR. The tentative age of the victim is around 17 years although there is no definite document with regard to exact age of the victim.

¶21

4. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application. However, he does not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶22

5. Considering the delay in lodging FIR, absence of any video as alleged and the medical on record not corroborating the allegations, however, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the applicant who is in jail since 8.11.2025 and has no criminal history is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶23

6. Let the applicant Arvind be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number ............."

¶24

In these circumstances, the applicant, who has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 08.11.2025, is entitled to be released on bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial and would also not influence the prosecution witnesses.

¶25

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the applicant. However, he could not dispute the above contention made by the applicant's counsel.

¶26

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and also that applicant has no criminal history and without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the application has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

¶27

BAIL No. 558 of 2026

¶28

3

¶29

Let the applicant - Kamlesh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties, out of which one should be of the family member/close relative in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following 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 observation made in this order.

¶40

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶41

February 26, 2026

¶42

ML/-

¶43

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anoop Soni vs Shri Shubham Singh Regional Passport Officer Lko.

Pratima Gupta vs Sri Amit Ghos / Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and Another

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

X Juvenile Delinquent Thru His Brother vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow and 3 Others

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

Prabhat Mishra vs Bindravan Lal Sharma, Director Directorate of Higher Edu. Lko. and Another