Dismissed¶11

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

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2025BAIL/2193/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail refused; second bail application dismissed. Applicant Sudhir; Case Crime No. 272 of 2018; Sections 302, 323, 504 IPC; PS Gosaiganj, District Lucknow; custodial detention since 25.5.2018; first bail application earlier rejected with expedition direction; seven witnesses examined, trial incomplete; A.G.A. opposition citing deceased-wife prosecution, house sale/eviction, death by burning and dying declaration implicating applicant; trial court directed to expedite trial without unnecessary adjournments. Bench: Hon'ble Rajeev Singh, J.; Order Date 19.5.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:29273; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is not entitled to be released on bail; the present second bail application is dismissed. ¶11

Sudhir vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29273

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2193 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sudhir Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Piyush Kumar Singh - learned A.G.A for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶7

This is second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.272 of 2018, under Sections 302, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station - Gosaiganj, District - Lucknow, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case and he is in jail since 25.5.2018. He further submits that first bail application of the applicant was rejected with the direction to the trial court to conclude the trial of the case, expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. He also submits that till today, seven witnesses have been examined and there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submits that deceased was the wife of the applicant and as applicant sold out the house, in which, she was residing alongwith his five years son. He also submits that purchaser with the association of the applicant came to the dwelling house and tried to evict the deceased alongwith the child and when she raised objection, then oil was poured by the accused persons on the body of the deceased and lit fire, as a result, she died. He further submits that in the dying declaration of the deceased, she made allegation against the

¶10

applicant, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

¶11

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A., material available on record, contents of F.I.R., statement of the witnesses, other relevant documents, nature of offence as well as facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail, accordingly, the present second bail of the applicant is hereby, dismissed .

¶12

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶13

Order Date :- 19.5.2025 GauraV/-

¶14

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Imteyaz Hasan Beg vs Sri Dileep Kumar Maurya Executive Engineer (Prescribed Authority) Electricity Distribution Unnao

Surya Bhan Singh vs Sri M. Dev Raj Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ram Sahai vs Sri Akshay Tripathi District Magistrate Distt. Lalitpur

Pavan Kumar and 3 Others vs Falguni Singh, Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate Sadar Lko.

C/M Shri Shanti Sanskrit Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalay Thru. Manager Smt. Shanti Devi vs Sri Deepak Kumar, Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Anil Kumar Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others