Sanjay Kumar vs State of U.P. thru Secretary Home Department

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.42 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Rausa, District Sitapur.

¶11

3.In the prosecution case it is alleged that daughter of the informant was married with the applicant eight months ago and adequate dowry according to the capacity was given however, in-laws was not happy with the dowry and additional dowry was demanded. On 04.02.2025 at about 1:00 pm informant received information via mobile that his daughter has been done to death.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that P.W.1 complainant i.e. father of the deceased and P.W.2 mother of the deceased, both have been examined. During cross-examination both have not supported the prosecution case. There is no chance of tampering the evidence. Cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. Applicant has no criminal history. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 05.02.2025.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer.

¶14

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 05.02.2025 having no criminal history, two fact witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been examined, there appears to be no chance of tampering the prosecution

¶15

BAIL No. 9185 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

evidence, cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging, there is no other ante mortem injury and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant Sanjay Kumar be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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 Panel Code (now Section 269 of BNS).

¶25

(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. (now Section 84 BNSS) 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 Panel Code (now Section 209 BNS).

¶26

September 23, 2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶27

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sanjay Kumar v. State of U.P. thru Secretary Home Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar v. State of U.P. thru Secretary Home Department

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

Babloo Saroj @ Ajeet Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dharmendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Vikas Babu Joshi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Swami Nath vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Mohd. Umair (as Per Fir Mohd. Umar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Shivam vs State of U.P. thru Secretary Home Departmen and 3 others