Dismissed¶16

Prahlad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 May 2025BAIL/14052/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application (S. 483 BNSS) of Prahlad in Case Crime No. 38 of 2025 (BNS Ss. 85 & 80; Dowry Prohibition Act Ss. 3/4), P.S. Kaimganj, District Farrukhabad, DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED at counsel's own request owing to typographical error, with intention to file a better application. A.G.A. objection based on affidavit para 17 admitting cruelty/dowry demand of Rs. 2 lakh sworn on personal knowledge left undetermined. Single judge: Samit Gopal, J.; order dated 21.5.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:85534. No merits adjudicated; no precedents discussed; no separate opinions.

What did the court decide?

Leave to withdraw the bail application as 'not pressed' (counsel indicated he would file a better bail application); no bail granted and no substantive relief on merits. ¶16

Prahlad Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Leave to withdraw the bail application as 'not pressed' (counsel indicated he would file a better bail application); no bail granted and no substantive relief on merits.

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Prahlad should be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 38 of 2025 (Sections 85 & 80 B.N.S.; Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act) during the pendency of trial. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

Learned counsel for the applicant prayed that the bail application be dismissed as not pressed, stating his intention to file a better bail application owing to a typographical error; the Court allowed the prayer and dismissed the application as not pressed. No view was expressed on the merits of the claim for bail, and the objection founded on paragraph 17 of the affidavit was left unadjudicated.

¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Court No. 64 (Single Bench: Samit Gopal, J.), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14052 of 2025 (Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:85534), order dated 21.5.2025. Applicant Prahlad moved an application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for bail in Case Crime No. 38 of 2025, Police Station Kaimganj, District Farrukhabad, arising under Sections 85 & 80 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Sanhita (B.N.S.) and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. At the outset the learned A.G.A. drew attention to paragraph 17 of the applicant's affidavit, wherein the deponent swore on personal knowledge that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty/harassment on account of a dowry demand of Rs. 2 lakh, contending that this was an admission of guilt leaving no ground for consideration of bail. Before any adjudication, learned counsel for the applicant prayed that the application be dismissed as not pressed, stating that he intended to file a better bail application since there was a typographical error in it. The Court allowed the prayer and dismissed the application as not pressed. No view was expressed on the merits of the bail plea; the order carries no bearing on bail entitlement and limited citation value beyond the fact of withdrawal and refiling.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85534

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14052 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Prahlad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mata Prasad Pal,Ram Chandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Ram Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant- Prahlad with the following prayers:-

¶9

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this bail application and enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 38 of 2025, under Section 85 & 80 of Bhartiya Nagrik Sanhita (hereinafter referred as B.N.S.) and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Kaimganj, District- Farrukhabad during the pendency of the trial to the satisfaction of court concerned.

¶10

And/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

¶11

At the very outset, learned A.G.A. has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph no. 17 of the affidavit which reads as under:-

¶12

"17. That it is respectfully submitted that soon before the death of the deceased she was subjected to cruelty/harassment on account of demand of dowry of Rs.2 Lakh."

¶13

It is submitted that the said paragraph has been sworn by the deponent on the personal knowledge which is admission of guilt and as such there does not any ground for consideration of bail of the applicant.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present bail application be dismissed as not pressed as he intends to file a better bail application since there is typographical error in it.

¶15

Prayer is allowed.

¶16

The present bail application is dismissed as not pressed.

¶17

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Naresh

¶19

Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prahlad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahlad v. State of U.P.

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