Raj Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9760 of 2026

Raj

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ankit Kumar Pal, Pravin Azam	Kumar, Shad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 70

¶5

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This bail application has been moved on behalf of the accused-applicant, for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 368 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 123, 140(4), 351(2), 142, 143 and 145 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Kamalganj, District Farrukhabad, during pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for accused-applicant, while pressing the bail application, submits that, the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case and has not committed any offence, as alleged by the prosecution. It is alleged in the first information report of this case that, on 28.10.2025, when the informant / victim was going to her maternal home, after having a hot talk with her husband, she was taken away by the co-accused persons, namely, Shyama Devi, Rashid and Raj (son of Shyama Devi) to the house of co-accused Shyama Devi. It is further alleged that, the victim was given some sedative and as a result, she lost her senses and was kept hostage inside the room for about 2-3 days by the accused persons and thereafter, she was sold to to one Suneel in lieu of Rs. 50,000/-, who has taken her to his residence. However, the victim by putting her best efforts, has returned to her maternal home. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that, no injury has been caused to the victim, as such, the allegation of physical assault are false and baseless. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that, the accused-applicant is languishing in jail in this matter since

¶9

BAIL No. 9760 of 2026

¶10

2

¶11

5.11.2025, criminal history of three cases has been explained in para 20 of the affidavit accompanying the instant bail application and there is no likelihood that, the accused-applicant, after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State opposes the prayer for bail of the applicant on the ground that, allegation of physical assault has been levelled against the applicant and the victim has specifically stated that, the applicant in connivance with other co-accused persons has sold her to one Suneel and the said Suneel has also admitted in his statement that, applicant and other co-accused persons have sold the victim to him in lieu of Rs.50,000/- and he married the victim, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that, the applicant in connivance with the other co-accused persons has intimidated and assaulted the victim and they have sold the victim to one Suneel in lieu of Rs.50,000/- and the said Suneel got married the victim. Then the victim got rescued herself from the clutches of these anti-social elements. The accused persons have terrorized and sold a helpless lady. Thus, having regard to the evidence available on record against the applicant and his complicity in the crime, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Hence, the bail application moved on behalf of applicant - Raj is hereby rejected.

¶14

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.

¶15

April 8, 2026 HR

¶16

(Harvir Singh,J.)

¶17

Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Yadav vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Prajapati vs Narcotics Control Bureau and Another

Malti Devi vs State of U.P.

Ajay Dubey @ Abhay vs State of U.P.

Saurabh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Panne Lal vs State of U.P.