Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 173690 (ALL)

DINENDRA KUMAR SINGH @ SIDHARTH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO.

/11611/2025 · 2025-11-28

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11611 of 2025 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Shubham Chaurasiya, learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. and Sri Neeraj Kumar Baghel, learned counsel for the informant. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 210 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 351(2), 140(2), 309(4), B.N.S., Police Station Aliganj, District Lucknow. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 07.10.2025 against eight persons, inter alia, stating that on the asking of his friend Ayan (co-accused), the informant's son had gone for a walk with him. Six persons came in a Mahindra XUV car and took the informant's son to unknown place and beaten him there mercilessly and relieved him on his promising of giving Rs. 2 lacs, and now the accused persons are harassing him for not giving aforesaid two lacs. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and the main allegation is against Salman and Ayan. He further submitted that the F.I.R. dated 07.10.2025 indicates that it was lodged at 4.04 p.m., whereas the arrest-memo indicates that he was arrested at 12.05 hrs., thus, the F.I.R. appears to be anti-time. In the affidavit filed in support of the application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he does not have any criminal history. He has been falsely implicated in the present case and is languishing in jail since 07.10.2025. 5. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application, but he could not dispute the facts stated above. 7. Having considered the aforesaid facts stated by the learned counsel for the applicant, without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the aforesaid crime. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shubham Chaurasiya, Mohd Hatim Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Dinendra Kumar Singh @ Sidharth .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) 8. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed. 9. Let the applicant- Dinendra Kumar singh alias Sidharth be released on bail in the aforesaid 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, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court. November 28, 2025 A.Nigam BAIL No. 11611 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench