Dismissed¶11

Anil Rathaur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2025BAIL/5021/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

bail rejected; Anil Rathaur v. State of U.P.; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5021 of 2024; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Pankaj Bhatia, J.; FIR No. 258 of 2023; Sections 302, 452, 323, 324 IPC; P.S. Safipur, District Unnao; kulhadi attack; death of informant's wife; six lacerated wounds; eyewitness (informant's son) not examined; custody since 11.9.2023 insufficient; revival of bail application permitted after eyewitness testimony.

What did the court decide?

The bail application is rejected. ¶11

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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5021 of 2024

¶3

Anil Rathaur

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.	Home Lko.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Afaq Zaki Kha Fatma, Moham Mohd. Salman, Rajeev Kumar, Kumar	n, Alimulla Khan, Ana mad Asad Mahmood, Parashu Ram Kanaujia, Sanat Singh, Shravan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 12

¶7

HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

¶8

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶9

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No. 258 of 2023, under sections 302, 452, 323, 324 IPC, P.S. Safipur, District Unnao.

¶10

3. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that in terms of FIR it was alleged that informant had gone out of home at about 5:35 AM when the applicant came inside home and attacked wife of informant with kulhadi. It was stated that son of informant was also present there and as the informant came the applicant was trapped in home and the door was locked by the informant from outside, subsequently wife of the informant died. Cause of death as per post mortem report is as many as six lacerated wounds in the mouth, neck, joint and forearms. The statement of son of the informant is also on record wherein he stated he had seen the applicant causing injuries his mother.

¶11

4. Considering the fact that severe injuries have been inflicted by the applicant and the fact witness has not been examined, the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in custody since 11.9.2023, cannot be accepted. As such, the bail application is rejected.

¶12

BAIL No. 5021 of 2024

¶13

¶14

5. It would be open for the applicant to revive the bail application after testimony of son who is eye witness of the incident.

¶15

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

¶16

December 2, 2025

¶17

J. K. Dinkar

¶18