Allowed¶19

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

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2025BAIL/9019/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail; Section 439 Cr.P.C.; second bail application; parity with co-accused; grant of bail; IPC Sections 323, 325, 504, 506, 304; Case Crime No.266 of 2023; P.S. Unchahar; District Raebareli; S.T. No.1330 of 2023; no criminal history; incarceration since 07.06.2023; co-accused Susheel Kumar; bail conditions; personal bond and two sureties; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Brij Raj Singh, J.; September 24, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Second bail application allowed; applicant Dinesh Kumar enlarged on bail in S.T. No.1330 of 2023 / Case Crime No.266 of 2023 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to the conditions enumerated in paragraphs 20 to 23 of the judgment. ¶19

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused-applicant Dinesh Kumar, facing trial in S.T. No.1330 of 2023 (Case Crime No.266 of 2023) under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 and 304 IPC, P.S. Unchahar, District Raebareli, is entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Susheel Kumar, who has been granted bail, given his incarceration since 07.06.2023 and absence of criminal history.

¶4

Court's answer

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the parity with co-accused Susheel Kumar (granted bail in his second bail application after considering the fresh cause of action and statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3), the applicant's incarceration since 07.06.2023 and the absence of any criminal history, it would be appropriate to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is to be released on bail in the said session trial/case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions including an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, presence before the trial court on dates fixed (personally or through counsel), personal presence at opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and liability to proceedings under Sections 229-A and 174-A IPC and Section 82 Cr.P.C. in case of default or misuse of bail liberty.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. — Parity with co-accused — Applicant Dinesh Kumar, accused in Case Crime No.266 of 2023, P.S. Unchahar, District Raebareli, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 and 304 IPC (S.T. No.1330 of 2023), earlier bail application having been rejected on 07.11.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13172 of 2023 — Co-accused Susheel Kumar granted bail on 04.09.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.995 of 2025 in his second bail application after considering fresh cause of action and statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 — Applicant in jail since 07.06.2023 with no criminal history — Held, enlargement on bail appropriate on grounds of parity, prolonged incarceration and clean antecedents — Release on personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions as to attendance, non-seeking of adjournments when witnesses present, and penal consequences under Sections 229-A and 174-A IPC and Sections 82 and 313 Cr.P.C. for default or misuse of bail liberty. (Brij Raj Singh, J.; decided September 24, 2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9019 of 2025

Dinesh Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶7

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Jaikaran
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 28

¶9

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶11

This is the second bail application. First bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13172 of 2023.

¶12

The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in S.T. No.1330 of 2023, Case Crime No.266 of 2023, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 and 304 IPC, Police Station Unchahar, District Raebareli.

¶13

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that co-accused Susheel Kumar has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 04.09.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.995 of 2025. He further submits that case of the applicant is at par with the co-accused Susheel Kumar. Applicant has been in jail since 07.06.2023 and there is no criminal history against him. He, therefore, prays that accused-applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

¶14

Sri Rajdeep Singh, learned AGA-I has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused Susheel Kumar has been granted bail by this Court in his second bail application after considering the fresh cause of action and the statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3.

¶15

Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case; the argument that coaccused, having similar role, has been granted bail by this Court in his second bail application after considering the fresh cause of action and the statements of P.W.-1

¶16

BAIL No. 9019 of 2025

¶17

¶18

and P.W.-3; the argument that applicant has been in jail since 07.06.2023 and there is no criminal history against him, it would be appropriate to enlarge the accusedapplicant on bail.

¶19

Let applicant- Dinesh Kumar be released on bail in the above Session Trial/case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) 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.

¶21

(ii) 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.

¶22

(iii) 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.

¶23

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶24

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶25

September 24, 2025 Rao/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar 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

Smt. Hoor Fatima and 5 Others vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Ram Dulare and 8 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Kusumakar Kushwaha vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Rammilan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Guru Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Kumar Yadav and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another