Dhanpat Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt of Home and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10598 of 2025

¶3

Dhanpat

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. And 3 Others	Deptt Of Home		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) :	Yaduvansh Mani Pandey	Singh,	Ravi Kant
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 15

¶7

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State. None appears on behalf of the complainant, although, as per the instructions of learned A.G.A, notice to the complainant is served.

¶9

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the applicant and co-accused Vikas have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant who is aged about 13 years.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S, the victim, after being annoyed with her mother, on her own accord, went away from home. In her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S, allegation of rape has been levelled against the co-accused Vikas and no allegation has been levelled against the applicant. She has further stated that she, alongwith the applicant and one Bindra went to Lucknow by bus. The name of Bindra has been dropped.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there is no corroborative medico-legal report in support of the prosecution case. In the radiological examination, the victim is 16 years of age. No injury has been found in the medico-legal examination of the victim.

¶12

He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and is languishing in jail since 23.08.2025. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

BAIL No. 10598 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the fact that the victim, in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S, has not supported the prosecution case, the fact that in the medico-legal examination, no injury has been found; the fact that the applicant has explained criminal history of one case in paragraph-16 of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 23.08.2025; and without entering into the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant.

¶17

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant Dhanpat involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 0245 of 2025, Under Sections- 137(2), 87 B.N.S and 16/17 POCSO Act, Police StationJagdishpur, District- Amethi, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶19

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶20

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶21

(iii) 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.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶23

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶24

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (now Section

¶25

BAIL No. 10598 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

209 of BNS).

¶28

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶29

October 31, 2025 DiVYa

¶30

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶31

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

Dhanpat v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt of Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanpat v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt of Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vimal Kumar Pandey @ Bose Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko.

Rasmuddin Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Awadhesh Kumar Omar Vs State of U.P. Thru.Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Lko. and Another

Bharat Kumar Mishra and 127 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Ayush Lko. and 3 Others

Rashid @ Mohd. Rashid vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home ) Lko.

Dharmendra Madhesiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.