Allowed¶36

Mukesh Dhanuk @ Tinku v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2025ABAIL/269/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

anticipatory bail; Section 438 Cr.P.C.; Criminal Misc ABAIL No. 269 of 2025; Mukesh Dhanuk @ Tinku; Case Crime No. 0084 of 2024; Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 354 IPC; 7/8 POCSO Act; Police Station Bazarkhal, District Lucknow; State of U.P.; interim anticipatory bail made absolute; no misuse of interim bail alleged; investigation concluded; charge-sheet dated 13.06.2024; counter affidavit; Junaid Vs. State of U.P. 2021 SCC Online All 463; notice deemed sufficient; Kamlesh Kumari AGA; Subhash Vidyarthi Judge; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; September 15, 2025

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted: the interim order dated 27.02.2025 (conditional interim anticipatory bail with personal bond and two solvent sureties) was made absolute. ¶36

Mukesh Dhanuk @ Tinku Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted: the interim order dated 27.02.2025 (conditional interim anticipatory bail with personal bond and two solvent sureties) was made absolute.

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Mukesh Dhanuk @ Tinku should be released on anticipatory bail (and the interim anticipatory bail order dated 27.02.2025 made absolute) in Case Crime No.0084 of 2024 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 354 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Bazarkhal, District Lucknow.

¶14

Court's answer

Since no allegation of misuse of the interim bail was levelled by the learned AGA and the investigation already stood concluded, the Court found no good ground to take a view different from the view taken by the Coordinate Bench on 27.02.2025 granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

The interim order dated 27.02.2025 was made absolute and the anticipatory bail application was allowed.

¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench, Court No. 13) — Subhash Vidyarthi, J. (decided September 15, 2025): Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. (ABAIL No. 269 of 2025) by Mukesh Dhanuk @ Tinku in Case Crime No. 0084 of 2024 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 354 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Bazarkhal, District Lucknow, against State of U.P. and 4 others. A Coordinate Bench had granted conditional interim anticipatory bail on 27.02.2025, deeming service of notice on opposite parties 2 and 3 sufficient in view of Junaid Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2021 SCC Online All 463. At the final hearing no one appeared to press the application; Smt. Kamlesh Kumari, learned AGA, levelled no allegation of misuse of the interim bail, and the investigation stood concluded with the State's counter affidavit annexing the charge-sheet dated 13.06.2024. Finding no good ground to depart from the Coordinate Bench's view, the Court made the interim order of 27.02.2025 absolute and allowed the anticipatory bail application.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 269 of 2025

¶3

Mukesh Dhanuk @ Tinku

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vindusar, Mohd. Ghayasuddin Khan, Sunil Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 13

¶8

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶9

Case called out. No one is present to press the anticipatory bail application and no request for adjournment of the case has been made.

¶10

Heard Smt. Kamlesh Kumari, learned AGA for the State.

¶11

The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed on 27.02.2025 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court:

¶12

"It has been informed by the learned counsel for the State that notice has been served upon the opposite parties 2 and 3, thus, in view of the ratio of Judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Junaid Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2021 SCC Online All 463, service of notice on them is deemed sufficient.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶14

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0084 of 2024 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 354 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Bazarkhal, District Lucknow.

¶15

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and only on the basis of suspicion, his name has been planted in this matter. Further submission is that specific allegation is against the co-accused persons Gautam Dhanuk, Ritik, Athar, Vishal and Tinku and, thus, role of the present applicant is distinguishable from that of the other co-accused persons. He further

¶16

ABAIL No. 269 of 2025

¶17

¶18

submits that the applicant has co-operated in the investigation and the charge sheet has been filed, as such, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence or fleeing away from trial proceedings. He further submits that the applicant is undertaking that he will co-operate with the trial proceedings and he will remain present before the trial court as and when required. He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is a law abiding citizen and he has acute apprehension of being arrested by the police, as such, he may be granted anticipatory bail which he will not misuse.

¶19

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that there is sufficient proof that the applicant has committed cheat and fraud, as such, he is not entitled to any relief.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court find it to be a fit case of interim anticipatory bail.

¶21

Till the next date of listing, the present applicant Mukesh Dhanuk shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶22

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶23

(ii) that 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;

¶24

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶25

(iv) that in case charge sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶26

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶27

(vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶28

(vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶29

List/put up this matter in the first week of April 2025.

¶30

In the meantime, learned counsel for the opposite parties shall file their counter affidavits. "

¶31

ABAIL No. 269 of 2025

¶32

¶33

The state has filed counter affidavit annexing therewith the copies of the material collected during investigation and the copy of the charge-sheet dated 13.06.2024.

¶34

Learned AGA has not levelled any allegation of any misuse of interim bail granted to the applicant and the investigation already stands concluded.

¶35

In these circumstances, this Court finds no good ground to take a view different from the view taken by a Coordinate bench of this Court on 27.02.2025 granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶36

In view of above, the interim order dated 27.02.2025 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶37

September 15, 2025 Anurag

¶38

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶39

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mukesh Dhanuk @ Tinku v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Dhanuk @ Tinku v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Having Its Office at Jail Vs Smt. Ramrati and Ors.

The New India Assurance Company Ltd.Thru Manager Vs Smt. Madhu Devi and Ors.

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Lko. Having a Branch at C-Block Vs Sri Chhedi Lal Jaiswal and Ors.

Daalchandra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kundan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another