Suresh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34641

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5048 of 2025

Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Nagendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

2. It is alleged in the prosecution case that the sister of the complainant was married to the son of the applicant on 6.2.2024. Adequate dowry was given, however, the accused persons were not happy with the dowry and demanded Swift car in additional dowry and used to beat the deceased and also threatened to kill in case dowry is not given. On 6.4.2025, she was murdered by the accused persons.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that perusal of post mortem report shows that except ligature mark, there is no ante mortem injury. There is no demand of dowry soon before her death according to the statement of the prosecution witnesses. The applicant is father in law and has no criminal history. The allegations against the accused are general in nature. There is no specific allegation against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 9.4.2025.

¶9

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for

¶11

the applicant.

¶12

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, the applicant is father in law, prima facie it does not appear that there was any demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased, the applicant has no criminal history, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶13

6. Let the applicant Suresh Kumar, involved in Case Crime No.114 of 2025 under sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S., 3/4 D.P. ACT, P.S. Neemgaon, district Lakhimpur Kheri 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

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

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(vi) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

7. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶21

Order Date :- 5.6.2025 kkb/

¶22

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Suresh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Saddam Husain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Mohd. Wasi Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Imran Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Akhilesh Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Rahul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. and 3 Others

Sobaran Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.