Kuldeep Lam @ Kuldeep Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the private opposite party no.2 and 5, as appears from the order of this Court dated 18.02.2026. Learned AGA is present in the Court. In these circumstances and also taking note of the order of this Court dated 18.02.2026 which says "It is also made clear that on the next date of listing, if the service is found sufficient and no one appears to oppose the present anticipatory bail application on behalf of the opposite party Nos.2 and 5, then in that eventuality the case would not be adjourned and an appropriate order would be passed on first call including an order adversarial to the opposite party Nos.2 and 5" , the Court proceeded to hear the instant bail revision on merits.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material placed on record.

¶14

4.The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant in relation to Case Crime No. 360/2025, under Sections- 65(1), 75, 87, 137(2) B.N.S. and Section4(2) POCSO Act and also Section- 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Police Station- Rampur Mathura, District- Sitapur.

¶15

Vide order dated 21.01.2026, this Court had protected the interest of the applicant. The order dated 21.01.2026, referred, reads as under:-

¶16

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

¶17

2. Impleadment application filed in the Court today is also taken on record.

¶18

3. Taking note of the facts stated in the application for impleadment, the same is allowed.

¶19

4. The learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to implead the victim of the case as opposite party No. 5 in this application during the course of the day.

¶20

5. On a query being put, Sri S.P. Tiwari, the learned AGA submitted that he has complete instructions in the matter and is ready to argue the case

¶21

NABAIL No. 82 of 2026

¶22

2

¶23

on merits, as such the Court proceeded to hear the instant application seeking anticipatory bail.

¶24

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

¶25

7. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 360/2025, under Sections65(1), 75, 87, 137(2) B.N.S., akin to Sections- 376(3), 354-B, 366, 363 IPC (now repealed), and Section- 4(2) POCSO Act and also Section- 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Police Station- Rampur Mathura, District- Sitapur.

¶26

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

¶27

(i) The opposite party No. 2/informant-victim has levelled the allegations in the FIR against her mother/Ramkali (co-accused), as per which she sold the opposite party Nos. 2 and 5 to co-accused namely Shrichand, Baliram and Kuldeep Lam @ Kuldeep Kumar (applicant) for taking money to the tune of Rs. 1 Lakh.

¶28

(ii) The accused, named above, took the victim(s)/opposite party No(s). 2 and 5 to Sonehara Mandir on 15.07.2025 with an intention to solemnize marriage of the applicant with the opposite party No. 2, which could not be solemnized on account of opposition and thereafter the accused brought the opposite party Nos. 2 and 5 to Village Keora (as 'Keoda' in the FIR).

¶29

(iii) At Village 'Keoda' the applicant established physical relations with the opposite party No(s). 2 to 5.

¶30

(iv) According to the statement(s) of opposite party No. 2, typed copies of which are on record, the applicant tried to solemnize marriage with the opposite party No. 2, which was refused by the opposite party No. 2 and thereafter the applicant in the premises in which co-accused, which includes the mother of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 5 were living, established physical relations forcefully with the opposite party No. 2 for about two months.

¶31

(v) According to the statement(s) of opposite party No. 5, typed copies of which are on record, sister-in-law of the applicant, who is also the real sister of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 5, asked the opposite party No. 5 to solemnize marriage with the applicant which was refused and thereafter the applicant established physical relations forcefully with the opposite party No. 5 in the premises in which co-accused, which includes the mother of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 5, were living. (vi) It is to be noted that co-accused Shrichand is brother-in-law of the informant/opposite party No. 2 and also that of opposite party No. 5. (vii) This Court also considered the medical opinion(s) of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 5, on record, wherefrom prima facie it appears that there was no sign of use of force based upon which the doctor concerned could form any opinion regarding establishing physical relations with the opposite party No(s). 2 and 5 forcefully. 9. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the applicant is entitled to interim protection.

¶32

10. Accordingly, as an interim measure it is provided that in the event of arrest, the accused-applicant- Kuldeep Lam @ Kuldeep 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:-

¶33

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

¶34

(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

¶35

(iii) That the accused-applicant shall not leave India without the previous

¶36

NABAIL No. 82 of 2026

¶37

3

¶38

permission of the Court.

¶39

11. Issue notice to the opposite party Nos. 2 and 5. Steps in this regard be taken within four working days.

¶40

12. Let the the opposite party Nos. 2 and 5 be also informed by the SHO concerned regarding pendency of the instant case and date fixed in it.

¶41

13. 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 Nos. 2 and 5 when the case is listed next. 14. List/put up this application on 18.02.2026 within top 20 cases. "

¶42

The learned AGA has failed to demonstrate from the counter affidavit that there is any adversarial fact to the facts which have been pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned AGA has also failed to point out any fact on which basis it can be inferred that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case.

¶43

In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant- Kuldeep Lam @ Kuldeep Kumar till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:-

¶44

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶45

(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;

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶51

February 25, 2026 Preeti

¶52

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

Kuldeep Lam @ Kuldeep Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Lam @ Kuldeep Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arman vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Gulam Rabbani Siddiqui vs Mr. Deepak Verma, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Raniganj, Pratapgarh and Another

X Juvenile Thru. His Mother/Guardian vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl./Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko and 3 Others

Juvenile Delinquent a Thru. His Father vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow and 3 Others

Asha Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Dinesh Kumar Vishwakarma vs Dr. Brijendra Singh, v.C., Acharya Narendra Dev Agriculture and Tech. University, Ayodhya