Dinesh vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42461 of 2025

¶3

Dinesh

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) :	Muktesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	G.A.
Court No.- 66

¶6

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶7

List revised.

¶8

Heard Sri Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶9

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Dinesh , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 240 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Chandawak, District Jaunpur.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued as follows:-

¶11

(i) The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶12

(ii) The applicant is the jeth of the deceased Smt. Reeta.

¶13

(iii) The marriage of the deceased Reeta was solemnized with Ganesh Rajbhar the elder brother of the applicant around 01 year back.

¶14

(iv) General and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant.

¶15

(v) The deceased committed suicide which is suggestive from the postmortem examination report, wherein, the deceased has received a single ligature mark on her body and the cause of death has been

¶16

BAIL No. 42461 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.

¶19

(vi) Ganesh Rajbhar the husband of the deceased is in jail.

¶20

(vii) The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 23 and is in jail since 04.08.2025.

¶21

(viii) Co-accused Vasu Rajbhar @ Puwasu Rajbhar the father-in-law and Smt. Meeta the mother-in-law of the deceased have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 07.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38990 of 2025, the copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-9 to the affidavit.

¶22

Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶23

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the jeth of the deceased. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. The husband of the deceased is in jail. Co-accused Vasu Rajbhar @ Puwasu Rajbhar the father-in-law and Smt. Meeta the mother-in-law of the deceased have been granted bail.

¶24

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶25

Let the applicant- Dinesh , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶26

(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶27

(ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶28

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she/he

¶29

BAIL No. 42461 of 2025

¶30

3

¶31

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.

¶32

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her/him presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023 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 her/him, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS, 2023.

¶33

(v) 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 351 BNSS, 2023. 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 her/him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against her/him under Section 269 BNS, 2023.

¶34

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶35

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶36

The bail application is allowed .

¶37

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶38

December 2, 2025 AS Rathore

¶39

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶40

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dinesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh 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

Similar cases

Pappy vs State of U.P.

Ramladdoo @ Ramchander vs State of U.P.

Dudhnath vs State of U.P.

Yashoda vs State of U.P.

Smt Kaila Devi Alias Kamlesh vs State of U.P. and Another

Muniya Devi Alias Munni Devi vs State of U.P.