Sonu Rawat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18832

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1181 of 2025 Applicant :- Sonu Rawat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Srees Kumar Srivastava,Akash Tiwari,Vimal Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

This third bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.140 of 2023, under Sections 326, 307, 452 IPC, registered at Police Station Baddupur, District Barabanki.

¶7

First Bail Application bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14442 of 2023 has been dismissed on merits vide order dated 07.12.2023 with second bail application bearing No.5370 of 2024 being dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 13.01.2025.

¶8

As per contents of FIR, applicant allegedly barged into his house of the informant and poured petrol upon victim setting fire to her.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that in fact there is serious contradiction in the allegations levelled in the FIR, statement of victim and the statement of sister of victim. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the fact that the informant in fact is not an eye witness and has not been able to explain reason as to why other eye witnesses were neither indicated in the FIR nor were taken by him to the police station for the purposes of getting the statements recorded at the time of registration of FIR. He has also adverted to deposition of informant as P.W.1, the victim as P.W.2 and the sister of victim as P.W.4 to submit that the presence of the sister of informant at the time of incident is completely contradictory with regard to

¶10

her presence at the place of incident. He has also adverted to deposition of the victim to submit that there were certain financial transactions between informant and the applicant which led to applicant having been invited by the informant to his house for purposes of reconciliation and it was in fact the informant who was responsible for the incident. It is submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 03.07.2023 without any previous criminal history and out of 12 witnesses, only seven prosecution witnesses have given their deposition. As such, it is submitted that there is no hope of early conclusion of trial.

¶11

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that there is no serious contradiction in the statements of informant, the victim and the sister of victim who have in fact corroborated the incident as alleged in the first information report. It is submitted that as of now only five prosecution witnesses remain for deposition.

¶12

Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that the presence of victim and her sister at the time and place of incident may be corroborated at the time of trial by evidence. The incident as narrated in the FIR, at this stage cannot be refuted at the stage of bail application. The medical report also appears to corroborate allegations levelled. The defence of applicant would also be subject matter of trial. At this stage, this Court does not find any occasion to grant indulgence to the applicant particularly when seven out of 12 witnesses have already deposed in trial court. This Court does not find any good ground to entertain the third bail application which is accordingly rejected . Trial court is directed to expedite the trial of Case Crime No.140 of 2023, under Sections 326, 307, 452 IPC, registered at Police Station Baddupur, District Barabanki.

¶13

Order Date :- 4.4.2025 Subodh/-

¶14

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

Sonu Rawat v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Rawat v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shakir Ali @ Baure vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Bheem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Adhar Yadav ( in Wria 8409 of 2011) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Vibhag Lko. and Another

Chandan Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Madan Ji Shukla Pno. 842462859 vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Indu Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.