Allowed

Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Aug 2025BAIL/8864/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in a dowry death case alleging throttling of the complainant's daughter. With all prosecution witnesses examined, no criminal history, and prolonged custody since 13.7.2020, the court allowed bail subject to conditions, relying on Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each, with conditions on conduct and attendance during trial.

Kanhaiya Lal Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46849

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8864 of 2021 Applicant :- Kanhaiya Lal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Shukla,Vivek Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

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

¶6

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the complainant married his daughter with the applicant on 13.6.2019. The inlaws of the deceased were not happy and they were making demand of dowry. She was being harassed due to nonfulfillment of alleged demand of dowry. On 6.7.2020 at about 06.00 am, the accused persons have killed his daughter by throttling her neck with the cloth.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He was not present at the time of the incident. He was out of station at that point of time. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 13.7.2020. 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.

¶8

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.

¶9

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact that as per post-mortem report, the deceased had sustained ante-mortem injuries which are in form of contusions and abrasions; cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging coupled with the fact that as per status report of the trial court, all the prosecution witnesses have been examined in this case; there appears no chance of tampering the evidence; the applicant has no criminal history; he is languishing in jail since 13.7.2020 as well as the judgement of the Apex Court in re: Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 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.

¶10

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶11

Let the applicant- Kanhaiya Lal involved in Case Crime No. 147 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Katra Bazar, DistrictGonda, 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:-

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Shravan

¶19

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

Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajan @ Ram Sanehi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Pravesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Wahid @ Popla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Kishan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

Lallan @ Nanku Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lucknow

Mahmood Alam Vs U.O.I. Thru. Zonal Director Narcotics Control Bureau Lko. Zonal Unit Lko.