Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 149439 (ALL)

2024 THRU. HER NATURAL GUARDIAN BROTHER v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. DPETT. OF HOME LKO AND ANOTHER

BAILC/92/2024 of XYZ INFORMANT OF CASE CRIME NO. 26 · 2025-04-08

Subhash Vidyarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19840 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 92 of 2024 Applicant :- Xyz Informant Of Case Crime No. 26 Of 2024 Thru. Her Natural Guardian Brother Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Dpett. Of Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Singh Bisen Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Afrin Bano,Shesh Mani Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This is an application for cancellation of order dated 25.06.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6875 of 2024, granting bail to the opposite party no. 2. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the injury reports had not been taken into consideration by the Court, while granting bail to the opposite party no. 2. 4. A perusal of the order dated 25.06.2024 indicates that the Court has assigned the following reasons for granting bail to the opposite party no. 2:- "Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that initially while lodging the first information report by the victim/prosecutrix, it has been stated that the applicant has only caught the hands of the prosecutrix and thereafter, inside the house, the prosecutrix was beaten, but, later on, the story is changed, which creates doubt in the prosecution story and prima-facie, demolishes the story of the prosecution. This court has also taken note of the fact that the prosecutrix has denied for conducting her medical examination, which is evident from the Annexure No. 3, appended alongwith the bail application. Further, the applicant is languishing in jail since 05-04-2024 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and there is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant; thus without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail." 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this Court assigned cogent reasons for granting bail to the opposite party no. 2. The non-consideration of injury reports would not vitiate the order, granting bail to the opposite party no. 2. 6. The instant bail cancellation application lacks merit and the same is dismissed. (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) Order Date :- 8.4.2025 MVS/- Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench