Pushpendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 36

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19129 of 2025

Applicant :- Pushpendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga,Harish Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anand Pati Tiwari,G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Short counter affidavit has been filed today in the Court, the same is taken on record.

¶6

This is second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.10.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.33712 of 2024.

¶7

Heard Mr. Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material available on record.

¶8

By means of this application, the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 176 of 2024, under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Makkhanpur, District- Firozabad.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. He submits that charge sheet was submitted on 6.10.2024 and there are 14 witnesses in the impugned charge sheet and till date no single witness has been examined. He further submits that in the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that she met with the applicant in the year 2021 and on 1.7.2022 she herself went to the Keshavkunj Hotel to meet the applicant where she herself established physical relation with the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there are some dispute develop between the parties, thereafter, marriage was failed, hence, the present FIR was lodged against the applicant. As per medical examination report of the informant/victim, there is no internal or external injury found

¶10

on the body of the victim. There are major contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.. The applicant was constable in U.P. Police Department and at present he has been suspended. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 9.7.2024 having no previous criminal history.

¶11

Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail but could not disputed the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Pushpendra Kumar , who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶14

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶15

(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 her under Section 229-A IPC.

¶16

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during

¶17

trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if 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.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case. (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.

¶19

(v) The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

With the above observation/direction, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶23

Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Krishna*

¶24

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

Pushpendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpendra Kumar 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