Amarpal v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
Single judge allowed bail to the applicant, father-in-law of the deceased, in a prosecution under BNS and Dowry Prohibition Act, finding the delayed FIR and lack of specific role indicated false implication.
What did the court decide?
Released on bail furnishing personal bond and two sureties each.
What the court decided
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:105914
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21316 of 2025
Applicant :- Amarpal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anoop Kumar Mishra,Dharmendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
- List has been revised.
- Heard Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. and perused the material placed on record.
- Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 34 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2), 3(5) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police StationKotwali Hasayan, District- Hathras, during the pendency of trial.
- Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about five days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant is the father-inlaw of the deceased person and he has nothing to do with the said offence. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is eligible for bail given the delayed FIR and his relationship to the deceased.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Amarpal
- respondent
State of U.P.
Coram
Krishan Pahal
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · July
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/21316/2025
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court