[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Ganesh Narad vs State Of U.P. on 4 February, 2026
Author: Santosh Rai
Bench: Santosh Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:23792
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3892 of 2026
Ganesh Narad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ashok Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.
2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Ganesh Narad seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.163 of 2024 under Sections 137(2) and 87 of BNS, P.S.- Dakor, District- Jalaun, during pendency of trial.
3. Tersely, as per allegation contained in the FIR, the victim/informant had been abducted by some unknown person and the victim left the house alongwith Rs.50,000/-. During course of investigation, name of the accused-applicant was surfaced on the basis of statement of the victim.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that accused-applicant is not named in the FIR. Furthermore, in the statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183, the victim had not specifically stated that the accused-applicant has enticed or abducted her. She further stated that she went to meet Mobina to handover the money but Mobina refused to accept the money and then she went Rath and then to Bageshwar and so on. Furthermore, it has been stated that she has solemnized marriage with the accused-applicant but he has not committed any wrong or have any sexual relationship with the victim. It is further submitted that the victim is a habitual absconder and used to abscond from the parental house earlier also and in this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the court to the subsequent statement of the complainant in this regard. It is further argued that applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 04.12.2025. Furthermore, as per the submission of learned AGA, chargesheet has already been filed in this case. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Having considered the submissions that the accused-applicant is not named in the FIR and his name surfaced during the course of investigation at a belated stage. Further, the victim was recovered and her statements were recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, in which she specifically stated that initially she went to meet Mobina and thereafter she went to Rath and then to Bageshwar and other different places. The role of the other accused persons namely, Kamta and Nagina is that they solemnized marriage of the victim with accused-applicant and the marriage is said to be solemnized on 28.05.2025. Furthermore, the victim live alongwith Ganesh in district Vardha, Durganagar for about nine months. As per the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180, her age is about 17 years. Furthermore, the victim denied physical/medical examination before the concerned medical officer. As per submission of learned AGA, chargesheet has already been filed in this case and, thus, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating and pressurizing the prosecution witnesses. The accused-applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 04.12.2025 and keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677, dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.
(v) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly in accordance with law.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail by the trial court.
8. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
(Santosh Rai,J.)
February 4, 2026
Ankit.
