RAHUL v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. DEPTT. HOME U.P. LKO.
BAIL/2431/2025 · 2025-03-24
Subhash Vidyarthi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 129528 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 129528 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16628 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2431 of 2025 Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Suyesh Pradhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Shri Suyesh Pradhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ravi Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 238 of 2024, under Sections 498- A, 304-B, 328, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Police Station- Sakran, District- Sitapur. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 13.06.2024 against the applicant, his parents and two other persons, stating that the informant had got his daughter married to the applicant less than a year ago; that all the accused person used to harass her for demanding dowry and they had beaten her up and made her consume acid about three months ago and they did not get her treated. In the statement of the informant, he stated that the accused persons were getting his daughter treated in District Hospital, Sitapur. Thereafter, he brought his daughter to his home. Although, the informant has alleged that the accused persons had beaten her, he declined to undergo medico-legal examination. 4. The informant's daughter died on 29.07.2024 while she was staying in the informant's home. The cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved for examination. The victim had given a written application to the police on 15.04.2024 stating that she herself had consumed acid and she did not want any action on the FIR lodged by her father. 5. The informant has given an affidavit stating that his daughter had died at his residence and he has lodged the FIR on instigation of some persons and he does not want any action thereof. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history. 5. The applicant's father and mother, co-accused Rajendra & Smt. Radha have been granted bail by means of orders dated 31.01.2025 & 17.02.2025 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc.
Bail Application Nos.961 of 2025 and 1410 of 2025 respectively. 7. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail in the aforesaid crime. 8. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed. 9. Let the applicant- Rahul be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. . [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] Order Date :- 24.3.2025 -Amit K- Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench