Ashutosh Awasthi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14126 Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1541 of 2025

¶3

Applicant :- Ashutosh Awasthi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- A nil Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Avishesh Singh, learned AGA- I for the State and perused the record.Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant- Ashutosh Awasthi with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 1479 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 302, 201 I.P/.C., Police Station- Kotwali Sadar, District - Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in present offence with ulterior motive. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that fact witnesses have not supported the prosecution version. He invites the attention of the Court towards the statement of the P.W.-1, the father of the deceased who deposed before the Court that whatever the story was told by the police, the report was lodged by him. He further deposed that he had not contacted with the lady, who had informed about the incident. Further he has denied the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and deposed that no demand of dowry was made by the applicant or his family members. The father of the deceased has also not supported the prosecution version in the cross examination. Similarly P.W.-2- Manoj, the fact witness has not supported the prosecution version. P.W.-3Dharmendra, P.W.-4- Girdhari and P.W.-5- Virendra have also not supported the prosecution version and they have also been declared hostile. As the fact witnesses have not supported the prosecution

¶9

version, therefore, it may be inferred that alleged offence has not been committed by the applicant. One case criminal history of the applicant has satisfactorily been explained. He further submits that there is no likelihood that the trial would be concluded in the near future, therefore, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. He has further submitted that the applicant in jail since 12.12.2022.

¶10

Learned AGA, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he has not disputed the aforesaid submissions that the fact witnesses have not supported the prosecution version.

¶11

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking into the fact that the father of the deceased- P.W.-1 has not supported the prosecution version in the cross examination and other witnesses have also been declared hostile, I am of the opinion that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Let the applicant, Ashutosh Awasthi , be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶13

(i) 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.

¶14

(ii) 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 under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iii) 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. is issued and

¶16

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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything in this order.

¶19

[ Brij Raj Singh, J.]

¶20

Order Date :- 7.3.2025 A nuj S ingh

¶21

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

Ashutosh Awasthi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashutosh Awasthi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

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

Bhupendra Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Anoop Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Alok Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Manish Raj vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Pinki Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko

Akhilesh Kumar Singh vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another