Dismissed¶11

Rahul v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2025BAIL/4873/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application rejected for suppression of criminal history (clean-hands point); Section 483 BNSS bail in Case Crime No. 255 of 2024, Sections 85 & 80(2) BNS and Sections 3-4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Nautanwa, District Maharajganj; prior prosecution Case Crime No. 322 of 2019, Sections 323/504/506 IPC; non-disclosure in bail application treated as relevant to bail prayer; merits not examined; second bail application permitted with correct facts; FIR dated 17.08.2024 copy to be returned; decided 4.3.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:30184.

What did the court decide?

No relief on the principal prayer (bail rejected); applicant permitted to move a second bail application with correct facts; office directed to return the certified copy of the F.I.R. dated 17.08.2024 to counsel for the applicant within three days. ¶11

Rahul vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30184

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4873 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamla Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed on behalf of applicant-Rahul with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 255 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Nautanwa, District Maharajganj, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

At the outset, learned Additional Government Advocate pointed out that apart from this case, applicant has criminal history of one case being Case Crime No. 322 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Nautanwa, District Maharajganj, whereas no disclosure has been made about the said case in the bail application.

¶9

On putting query, learned counsel for the applicant could not dispute the aforesaid submission of learned Additional Government Advocate and submits that deponent of this case is real brother of the applicant and he was not aware about criminal history of the applicant, therefore, the same has not been mentioned.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the applicant has not come up with clean hands as he has suppressed and concealed the material facts about his criminal history, which is also one of the relevant aspect for considering the bail prayer of the applicant.

¶11

Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected without going into the merit of the case.

¶12

However, it is open for the applicant to move second bail application with correct facts.

¶13

Office is directed to return the certified copy of the F.I.R. dated 17.08.2024 to the counsel for the applicant within three days after retaining photocopy of the same on record.

¶14

Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Kashifa

¶15

Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Rafik vs State of U.P.

Umakant vs State of U.P.

Rajnath Singh vs State of U.P.

Vikas Yadav vs State of U.P.

Aman vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep vs State of U.P.