RAM DAYAL v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS
BAIL/8606/2024 · 2025-10-31
Pankaj Bhatia
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 180385 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 180385 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8606 of 2024 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Shri Rajiv Dubey learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 3. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.17 of 2024, under Sections 376D, 323, 363, 506 IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Chandan Chauki, District Lakhimpur Kheri. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that in terms of FIR lodged on 28.5.2024 serious allegations were levelled alleging that daughter of the informant aged about 16 had gone to wedding on 28.4.2024 where five named persons and two unnamed persons took her by force to an agricultural fields and out of 6 to 7 persons four persons committed wrong on her and the other three persons were catching hold of legs and hands. Allegations of offences under Section 376 and 377 IPC were also made out and subsequently she was also beaten up and threatened. The reason for lodging FIR after substantial delay was that the victim did not inform the said facts and subsequently revealed the fact. The Medical on record did not corroborate the allegations and before the medical authority no allegations of offence under Section 377 IPC were levelled. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed a supplementary affidavit today Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vipul Kumar Pandey, Arun Singh Somvanshi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajiva Dubey Ram Dayal .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s)
indicating that the statement of the victim had been recorded and in the light of the medical report and the statements it is argued that allegations are highly improbable. It is also argued that one of the co accused Bhajji who was not named in the FIR was enlarged on bail vide order dated 29.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 11732 of 2024 whereas the applicant was named in the FIR. 5. Learned counsel for the informant on the other hand argues that the statement of the victim have been recorded however the applicant are not cross examining the said witness as has been noticed by the trial court.
Considering the fact that the applicant are not cooperating with trial, the bail application deserves to be dismissed. 6. Considering the submission made at the bar prima facie there is a substantial delay in lodging the FIR. The medical does not corroborate the allegations and the allegations in the statements are inherently improbable and are contradiction with the statements made before the medical authority particularly in relation to the alleged offence under Section 377 IPC. Considering these inconsistencies, however, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the applicant who is in jail since 29.5.2024 and has no criminal history is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed. 7. Let the applicant Ram Dayal be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions: (a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and (c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 8. The applicant shall cooperate with the trial. In the event the applicant taking any unnecessary adjournment in the trial court the respondents BAIL No. 8606 of 2024 2
would have the liberty to move bail cancellation application. October 31, 2025 J. K. Dinkar BAIL No. 8606 of 2024 3 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench