Dashrath Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28341 of 2025

Dashrath Kushwaha

.....Applicant(s) Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Santosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 65

¶5

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 483 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2) of BNS, Police Station Ajitmal, District Auraiya, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by more than 16 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶10

Learned counsel has next stated that the case of the applicant is at par with co-accused person Abhay Singh Kushwaha, who has been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.05.2025. The only difference is that the applicant is the real brother-in-law of the deceased person. The allegations is that the deceased called the informant and told him that applicant along with his nephew Abhay Singh Kushwaha had met him in the market and they shall cook meal for him but subsequently, dead body was recovered.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the allegations are per se false. There is no C.D.R. report to corroborate the said story of

¶12

BAIL No. 28341 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

the deceased having communicated with the informant on phone, as such it is a clear cut case of false implication. There is no eye witness to the incident. The cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem throttling, although three injuries were found on the neck of the deceased person. The wife of the applicant was estranged and her statement falls within the category of interested witnesses, as such the applicant is entitled for bail.

¶15

There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and taking into consideration the fact that there is no eye witness to the incident and the FIR is delayed coupled by the fact that there is no C.D.R. report to corroborate the prosecution story, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant- Dashrath Kushwaha , 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.

¶19

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶20

ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶21

iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶22