Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 461 of 2026

Manoj Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Adarsh Shukla, Prince Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Anjani Kumar Srivastava

¶7

Court No. - 13

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant/informant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶10

The present application has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in FIR/Case Crime No. 0003 of 2026, under Sections - 69, 115(2), 351(3) B.N.S (old Sections 376, 323, 506 I.P.C), Police Station -Gaurifanta, District- Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this Court has granted ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicant by passing order dated 13.03.2026, for convenience, the order is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶12

" 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶13

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant in relation to Case Crime No. 0003 of 2026, under Sections- 69, 115(2), and 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station- Gaurifanta, District- Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶14

3. While pressing the instant application, the learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant is innocent and he has not committed any crime.

¶15

4. Further submission is that if the allegations levelled in the FIR in issue, basis of pending criminal proceedings, against the applicant which are to the effect that on the false pretext of marriage the applicant established physical relations with the victim/complainant are taken on its face value then in that eventuality, the possibility of conviction of applicant is bleak in view of law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment(s) rendered in the case of Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675; Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of U.P. and

¶16

NABAIL No. 461 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

Another, (2021) 7 SCC; Mandar Deepak Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2110 and Amol Bhagwan Nehul vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1230.

¶19

5. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicant shall cooperate in the trial.

¶20

6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer made by applicant's counsel.

¶21

7. Taking note of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the interest of the applicant is liable to be protected.

¶22

8. Considering the aforesaid and also the case of prosecution against the applicant indicated in the FIR and also the judgments, referred above, this Court finds that the applicant is entitled to interim protection.

¶23

9. Accordingly, as an interim measure it is provided that in the event of arrest, the accused-applicant- Manoj Kumar 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:-

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

10. Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 and 3 returnable at an early date. Steps to be taken within three working days.

¶27

11. List/put up this case on 24.03.2026, in top 20 cases along with service report.

¶28

12. In the meantime, learned A.G.A. shall file counter affidavit. "

¶29

It is further submitted that it is an admitted case of the applicant that the victim, aged about 32 years, was in relationship with the applicant since the year 2010 i.e for the last 16 years.

¶30

On the other hand, learned A.G.A, on the basis of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State and learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, have opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, but they are unable to dispute that the applicant was in relationship with the victim since the year 2010, which can be seen from her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure no. 4 to the paper book, wherein she has stated that in the year 2014, when the applicant got a job, she asked for marriage, but the applicant refused the same, even

¶31

NABAIL No. 461 of 2026

¶32

3

¶33

thereafter, the victim continued physical relation with the applicant. But they very fairly submitted that nothing new has been brought on record which may controvert the grounds on which ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant by this Court.

¶34

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 13 .03.2026 while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant Manoj Kumar 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 :-

¶35

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

¶36

(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;

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

April 30, 2026 DiVYa

¶42

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶43

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 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

Smt. Nandini Sadashiv Dubey and Another vs Shri Vijay Ranjan Srivastava Naib Tehsildar Sumerpur Unnao

Pradeep Kori @ Pradeep Harijan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Keval vs Sri Akash Deep Badhawan Divisional Forest Officer Barabanki Forest Division Barabanki and Another

Ajeet Singh @ Abhishek Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

M/S Awadh Traders Thru. Authorized Signatory Rajesh Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko. and 2 Others