Allowed

Pradeep Bot v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2025BAIL/6506/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application for the applicant accused of murdering his wife and hiding the body in a drain under Sections 302, 201 IPC. Fact witnesses had turned hostile and criminal history was explained; without expressing opinion on merits, the court found it a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount to satisfaction of court concerned, subject to conditions.

Pradeep Bot Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48170

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6506 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Pradeep Bot Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

The certified copy of the statement of PW-3 and PW-4 provided today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the daughter of the complainant got married with the applicant 12 years back. It is further alleged that on 25.3.2023 in the night, the accusedapplicant has committed the murder of the victim and the dead body has been hidden in the drain situated in front of the house.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent. As per the post-mortem report, there are seven antemortem injuries. Cause of death is ante-mortem head injury. However, there is no eye-witness to the incident. Even the alleged hearsay witnesses, who are neighbours of the applicant, have been declared hostile. The fact witnesses i.e., PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 have also turned hostile.

¶10

It is further submitted that the applicant has explained the criminal history of two cases in the supplementary affidavit and he is languishing in jail since 26.3.2023. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

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

¶12

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact that the fact witnesses i.e., PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 have turned hostile; the applicant has duly explained the criminal history; he is languishing in jail for more than two years i.e., since 26.3.2023 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for

¶13

enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant- Pradeep Bot involved in Case Crime No. 142 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police StationMotipur, District- Bahraich, 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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 in accordance with law.

¶21

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. 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 209 of B.N.S.

¶22

Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Shravan

¶23

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

Pradeep Bot v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Bot v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ritesh Mittal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Shiva Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Nishant Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Maynoor @ Sharukh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Anand Singh @ Chunna Vs State of U.P. through Secretary, Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lucknow