Vipin Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the daughter of the informant was married to the applicant five years ago. The victim was subjected to beating relating to demand of dowry. It is alleged that on 28.6.2024, she has been beaten by the named accused persons and she is admitted in the hospital under critical condition.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. In the post-mortem report, there is no ante-mortem injury which falsifies the prosecution case. The cause of death could not be ascertained and hence, the viscera was preserved for forensic analysis. In the viscera report, no poison has been found. It is submitted that the PW-1 and PW-2 i.e., the father and the mother of the deceased have been examined before the trial court and they have been declared hostile.

¶13

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 20.09.2024. 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.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the

¶15

BAIL No. 8308 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶18

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, the post-mortem report so also the fact that the viscera report does not corroborate the material in support of the prosecution case; the PW-1 and PW-2 i.e., the father and the mother of the deceased have turned hostile in the trial coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents; he is languishing in jail since 20.9.2024 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant- Vipin involved in Case Crime No. 419 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 302, 328 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Shahar, District- Hardoi, 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:-

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

BAIL No. 8308 of 2025

¶27

3

¶28

(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.

¶29

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶30

September 2, 2025 Shravan

¶31

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

Vipin v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Jiya Ul Vs State of U.P. Through the Principal Secretary Home, civil Secretariat, U.P. Government Lucknow

Suraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Susheel Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ravi @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Brijesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Ishvar @ Ishvar Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another