Deepak vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ...

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no.1- State and perused the record.

1A. As per Chief Judicial Magistrate report dated 27.07.2026, notice has been served upon respondent no.2 informant/ victim but no one has put in appearance on his behalf.

2. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.173 of 2025, under Sections 64(2)(m), 137(2), 87 B.N.S. & Section 5(L) /6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station- Dalmau, District Raebareli.

3. As per contents of first information report which has been lodged against unidentified persons, incident is said to have taken place on 08.07.2025 when the daughter of informant aged about 17 years is said to have gone missing. It has further been stated in the FIR that when efforts were on for locating the missing daughter, informant received a phone call indicating that she had eloped with the son of caller.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against him and that in fact the applicant and victim were in a consensual relation-ship and had also contracted marriage which was being opposed by the girl's family. Learned counsel has adverted to statement of victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S to indicate that she has admitted the aspects of consensual relation-ship and marriage between parties. He has also adverted to the High School Certificate of the alleged victim indicating her date of birth as 14.01.2008. It is further submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history. He is languishing jail since 14.02.2026.

5. Learned AGA has filed objection which is taken on record and on that basis submits that even as per the High School Certificate, the victim is below 18 years of age and therefore her consent is meaning less. It is however admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

7. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that the victim in her statement recorded under Sections 180 & 183 B.N.S.S. has not supported the prosecution version and has clearly indicated a consensual relation-ship between her and the applicant. It is also stated that the two have in fact contracted marriage. In the opinion of this Court there is a distinction between forced sexual relations between major and a minor and romantic consensual relation-ship. The age of applicant has been indicated as 23 years and therefore the aforesaid distinction at this stage would be applicable. Applicant does not have any previous criminal history is under incarceration since 14.02.2026. As such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

9. Let applicant Deepak, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) The applicant(s) shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(ii) The applicant(s) shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/her counsel. In case of his/her/ their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her/their under Section 269-A of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

(iii) In case, the applicant(s) misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her/ their presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/her/them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

(iv) The applicant(s) 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 under Section 351 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant(s) is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him/her/them in accordance with law.

(Manish Mathur,J.)

May 7, 2026

Subodh/-