Rajneesh Maurya @ Kallu @ Rajneesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

As per Office report dated 17.03.2026, notice has been served upon respondent no. 2 personally but till date neither the respondent has put in appearance either personally or through counsel.

¶12

This Court has already passed a stop order dated 18.03.2026, which is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶13

"1. Counter affidavit filed by the learned AGA in the Court today is taken on record.

¶14

2. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 to oppose the instant bail application despite service of notice, as appears from the letter of Incharge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri dated 17.03.2026.

¶15

3. In the interest of justice, the case is adjourned today.

¶16

4. List/put up this case on 24.03.2026 within top 20 cases.

¶17

5. Interim protection granted by this Court earlier is extended till the next date of listing.

¶18

6. It is made clear that on the next dates of listing, the case would not be adjourned on any ground including the illness and appropriate orders, which includes adversarial order to the opposite party No. 2/informant, would be passed in first call even in absence of informant's counsel."

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶20

The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C./ 482 BNSS has been filed by the accused-applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with

¶21

NABAIL No. 354 of 2026

¶22

2

¶23

Case Crime No. 481 of 2025, under Sections 87, 115 (2), 123, 64 (2) (M) of BNS, 2023 (old Sections 366, 323, 328 and 376 (2) N of IPC), Police Station Bhira, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this Court has granted adinterim anticipatory bail by passing a detailed order dated 25.02.2026 after hearing learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA, for convenience, the order is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶25

"1. Supplementary affidavit filed in the Court today is taken on record.

¶26

2. On a query being put, Sri Badrul Hasan, 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 anticipatory bail.

¶27

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

¶28

4. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 481/2025, under Sections- 87, 115(2), 123, 64(2)(M) B.N.S., akin to Sections- 366, 323, 328, 376(2)(N) IPC (now repealed), Police Station- Bhira, District- Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶29

5. For the purposes of entertaining the instant application and also protecting the interest of the applicant, this Court considered the facts of the case, which includes the following:-

¶30

(i) As per the FIR No. 0481/2025 dated 28.12.2025 lodged by the opposite party No. 2/Madan Lal/informant (father of prosecutrix/victim) at Police Station- Bhira, District- Kheri against Rajneesh Maurya @ Kallu @ Rajneesh (applicant herein) and Shyamu Maurya (co-accused) making allegations therein so as to attract the offence as indicated under Section- 87 B.N.S., in connection to which the instant anticipatory bail application has been filed, on 25.12.2025 at about 5.00 P.M. the applicant namely Rajneesh Maurya @ Kallu @ Rajneesh with the help of Shyamu Maurya (coaccused) enticed away the minor daughter (prosecutrix/victim), aged about 18 years, of the informant from the area namely Padriya Tula, where fair (Mela) was going on.

¶31

(ii) As per the statement of prosecutrix/victim recorded in terms of Section 180 B.N.S.S. by the Investigating Officer (in short "IO"), on the date of incident i.e. 25.12.2025 the prosecutrix/victim alongwith her family members was present in the

¶32

NABAIL No. 354 of 2026

¶33

3

¶34

fair (Mela) and at the said place the prosecutrix/victim consumed/eaten fritters (Pakodi) which were offered by the applicant and thereafter the prosecutrix/victim became unconscious and thereafter the applicant abducted her and for a period of about 10 days the prosecutrix/victim was in the custody of the applicant and during this period the applicant also established physical relations with the prosecutrix/victim forcefully and thereafter the applicant dropped the prosecutrix/victim at Lakhimpur crossing on 06.01.2026.

¶35

(iii) As per the statement of victim recorded in terms of Section 183 B.N.S. before the Magistrate concerned, the applicant is the relative of prosecutrix/victim and the prosecutrix/victim consumed fritters (Pakodi) offered by the applicant due to which she became unconscious and thereafter the applicant abducted her and for a period of about 10 days the prosecutrix/victim was in the custody of the applicant and during this period the applicant also established physical relations with the prosecutrix/victim forcefully and also made obscene video clips and thereafter she fled away from the custody of the applicant.

¶36

(iv) The medical report, on record as Annexure No. 4 to the supplementary affidvait, prima facie, does not find favour to the story of the prosecution.

¶37

(v) In the presence of family members at Mela ground it was not possible for the applicant to abduct the prosecutrix/victim, as stated.

¶38

6. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the applicant is entitled to interim protection.

¶39

7. Accordingly, as an interim measure it is provided that in the event of arrest, the accused-applicant- Rajneesh Maurya @ Kallu @ Rajneesh be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties (one of family member/close relative) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶40

(i) That the accused-applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation;

¶41

(ii) That the accused-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; and

¶42

NABAIL No. 354 of 2026

¶43

4

¶44

(iii) That the accused-applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶45

8. Issue notice to the opposite party No. 2. Steps in this regard be taken within four working days.

¶46

9. Let the the opposite party No. 2 resident of Village- Padriya Tula, Bhira, Kheri be also informed by the SHO concerned regarding pendency of the instant case and date fixed in it.

¶47

10. Learned AGA is directed to communicate this order to the SHO concerned forthwith and file an affidavit in response to this application annexing therewith the proof of information given by the S.H.O. concerned to the opposite party No. 2 when the case is listed next.

¶48

11. List/put up this application on 18.03.2026 within top 20 cases."

¶49

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed by the State but nothing new has been stated therein which could controvert the ground on which ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant.

¶50

On the other hand, Learned AGA on the basis of counter affidavit has submitted that applicant has committed an offence as per the statement of the informant but very fairly admitted that there is nothing new brought in the counter affidavit to oppose the anticipatory bail on the grounds on which ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted by this Court.

¶51

Upon due consideration of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the ad-interim bail granted to the applicant is hereby confirmed and the present anticipatory bail application is allowed in terms of order dated 25.02.2026 while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant - Rajneesh Maurya @ Kallu @ Rajneesh till disposal of the trial, the applicant shall appear before the court concerned and furnish bail bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial/concerned Court/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions :-

¶52

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and shall not abscond;

¶53

(ii) that 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶54

NABAIL No. 354 of 2026

¶55

5

¶56

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶57

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶58

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶59

In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this order.

¶60

April 28, 2026 Ashish

¶61

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶62

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajneesh Maurya @ Kallu @ Rajneesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajneesh Maurya @ Kallu @ Rajneesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Abhishek Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Abhishek Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Triloki Nath Misra @ Triloki vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shri Raj Vansh Varma and Another vs Smt. Nisha Singh, Addl. Distt. Judge Court No. 3 Sultanpur

Varun Talwar vs Shri Rajiv Krishna Hold the Post of Director General of Police Lko. and Another

Ghanshyam Yadav vs Harshita Mathur, Distt. Magistrate Raebareli