Amrit Lal Patel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 650 of 2026

Amrit Lal Patel

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Others	Home Lko.	And	4 ...	..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Surya Yadav, Paliwal	Prak Dr.	ash Tiwari, Pooja Singh,	Abhishek Shivangi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Av	inas	h Pandey
Court No.- 13

¶7

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No.298/2025, Under Sections 115(2), 65(1), 74, 351(3) BNS and Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)V, 3(2)Va SC/ST Act, Police Station - Kunda, District - Pratapgarh, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶10

On the last dated i.e. 01.04.2026 the case was adjourned on the ground of illness of learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and fixed this case in the next week in terms of order dated 10.03.2026. This Court by order dated 10.03.2026 has passed a stop order that the case would not be adjourned on account of non-appearance of learned counsel for the parties and appropriate order would be passed in the first call even including an order adversarial against private opposite parties.

¶11

The case has been called but learned counsel for the respondent is neither present nor any request has been made on his behalf for adjournment of the case.

¶12

5 . The brief facts of the case are that the F.I.R. dated 28.10.2025 has been lodged under Section 74, 351(3) BNS (Old Sections 354 and 506 I.P.C.), Section 7/8 POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(Va) SC/ST Act, 1989 (amended Act 2015) against the applicant alleging therein that on 27.10.2025 when the daughter of the informant aged about 17 years had

¶13

BAIL No. 650 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

gone to the field for natural call at about 6.30 PM to 7.00 PM, the applicant reached near her daughter and started dragging her by holding her hand and when she shouted, the applicant ran away by threatening her for her life.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the informant in her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS has stated the same story as it has been narrated in the F.I.R. and there was no allegation of outraging the modesty of her daughter. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS has added a line that the applicant tried to do 'Jabardasti' with her and when she shouted, he ran away from the place of incident. In her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, she further improvised the story by making statement that the applicant has made a physical relation after taking off her clothes with details. So, it is clear that the victim has unnecessarily/ falsely implicated the applicant for the allegation made under Section 65(1) of the BNS (Old Section 376 IPC) and after her statement Section 65(1) BNS has been added and Section 7/8 POCSO Act has been converted into Section 3/4 POCSO Act.

¶17

It is further submitted that the internal medical examination of the victim was conducted on 29.10.2025 i.e. on the 3rd day of the alleged incident, wherein it has been found that the hymen is intact; no fresh internal injury seen; no fresh external injury seen, which shows that the statement given by the victim making allegation against the applicant for outraging her modesty does not support the case made by her and the story is highly improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix.

¶18

It is further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He is in jail since 03.11.2025.

¶19

In support of her submission, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments of the 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.... 2025, arising out of SLP (Crl. ) No.1445/2025.

¶20

On the other hand learned A.G.A. on the basis of counter affidavit has vehementally opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and has stated that from the statement of the prosectrix the offence is made out but unable to dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶21

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, prima facie, it appears that the informant i.e. mother of the victim lodged the F.I.R. and this must be on the basis of the information given by her daughter, but in the F.I.R. no allegation or story regarding outraging the modesty was recorded. The informant in her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS after two days of the lodging of the F.I.R. had not whispered even a single word regarding outraging the modesty of her daughter, though in between if any such incident had

¶22

BAIL No. 650 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

occurred, the victim definitely would have told to her mother. The victim improvised her statement at every stage as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant i.e. the statement recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS. Apparently the medical report does not corroborate with the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS and as per judgements relied by the learned counsel for applicant in the case of Sadashiv Ramarao Hadbe ( Supra) and Birka Shiva (Supra) , wherein it has been held that in case the version of the prosecutrix is not supported by medical evidence or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix, hence, it is a fit case in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶25

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.

¶26

Let the applicant Amrit Lal Patel 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:-

¶27

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

¶28

(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶29

(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.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

(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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶36

April 8, 2026 S. Kumar

¶37

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

Amrit Lal Patel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrit Lal Patel 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Haridwar and Another vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Ayodhya

Vipin Kumar vs Ms. Kavita Thakur Tehsildar Tehsil Haidergarh Barabanki

Shafiq Ahmad vs Saurabh Babu, Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Mr. Rajagopalan Chakravarthi Madhvan and Another vs Special Court , P.C. Court No. 1 Lucknow and Another

Mrs. X Victim of Case Crime No. 281/2021 Thru. Her Next Friend Jagmohan Kumar vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Smt. Chandrakanti Devi vs Dr. Mahendra Dev. Dir. of Basic Edu. U.P. Lko. and Another