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

The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.399 of 2025, under Sections- 64(1), 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station-Banthara, District-Lucknow.

¶13

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

¶14

It is further stated that as per the prosecution case, which has narrated in the F.I.R lodged by the husband of the prosecutrix/victim as well as by the prosecutrix/victim herself, it is the applicant, who forcibly entered into the house of the informant and committed rape upon the informant's wife (prosecutrix/victim) and also threatened to life.

¶15

It is further stated that prosecution story is completely false, concocted and bogus as:-

¶16

(i) There is no medical opinion which support the story of the prosecution.

¶17

(ii) The doctor, after due medical examination of the prosecutrix/victim could not opine that it is a case of sexual violence, as no internal/external injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix/victim.

¶18

(iii)The prosecutrix/victim is a married lady aged about 40 years, who has levelled allegation against the present applicant, who is aged about 30 years

¶19

BAIL No. 705 of 2026

¶20

2

¶21

only on account to extract the amount from the State exchequer.

¶22

(iv) There is no eye-witness of the prosecution story though the prosecution says that there is one eye-witness of the alleged crime, if such crime occurred, the eye-witness ought to have interfered in the matter to save the victim from the applicant.

¶23

(v) The DNA report is not available with the prosecution to connect the present applicant with the prosecution case, as indicated by the informant as well as by the prosecutrix/victim.

¶24

7.It is further submitted that applicant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 25.11.2025. 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, 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. opposed the prayer of the applicant. However, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the applicant's counsel including made based upon the testimony of injured witnesses.

¶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 keeping in mind the period of incarceration of the applicant 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

Let the applicant- Pradeep 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) each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :-

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶32

BAIL No. 705 of 2026

¶33

3

¶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 3, 2026 Preeti

¶42

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

Pradeep v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. 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

Shashi Bhushan Singh vs Ms. Kamini Ratan Chauhan Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. State Tax Lko.

Musabbar @ Gabdu @ Musabbar Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Kanchan Rastogi @ Kanchan Soni vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Santoshi Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Girja Shanker Mishra vs Santosh Kumar Sinha, Addl. General Manager/Unit Head I.T.I. Ltd. Gonda

Rinki Gautam and Another vs Sri Shubham Shukla Distt. Basic Education Officer Distt. Balrampur