Dharmendra Madhesiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9460 of 2025

Dharmendra Madhesiya

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Apoorv Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 15

¶8

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶9

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

¶10

It is alleged that several death certificates were fraudulently issued between the years 2002 and 2025. The applicant, who is stated to be operating a Jan Suvidha Kendra, has been held responsible on the allegation that he might have been involved in the commission of the said offence.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a private individual and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that no fake certificates could have been issued without the active involvement or connivance of government officials managing the Jan Suvidha Kendras. False recovery of a laptop, keypad mobile phone and four birth certificates are alleged to be recovered from the possession to which there is no public witness to the recovery. The offences alleged are triable by a Magistrate, and the charge sheet has already been filed. The applicant has been languishing in jail since 18.07.2025 and has duly explained his criminal antecedent relating to one case in the bail application.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Abhishek Gupta who was assigned the similar role has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 9256 of 2025. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity with the

¶13

BAIL No. 9460 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

order of the co-accused.

¶16

It is further submitted that 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.

¶17

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

¶18

Upon due consideration to the facts that the co-accused has been granted bail; the applicant is a private individual alleged to run a Jan Suvidha Kendra; there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery, the offences are triable by magistrate, the charge sheet has been filed, and the applicant has explained his criminal antecedent and is in custody since 18.07.2025, this Court finds it a fit case to grant bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let the applicant Dharmendra Madhesiya involved in Case Crime No.: 275/2025, under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 336(4), 338 B.N.S. & 65 I.T. Act, P.S.-Tadiyawan, 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

BAIL No. 9460 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

(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.

¶28

(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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

¶29

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶30

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶31

October 31, 2025 R.C.

¶32

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

Dharmendra Madhesiya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Madhesiya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vimal Kumar Pandey @ Bose Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko.

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

Awadhesh Kumar Omar Vs State of U.P. Thru.Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Lko. and Another

Bharat Kumar Mishra and 127 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Ayush Lko. and 3 Others

Rashid @ Mohd. Rashid vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home ) Lko.

Dhanpat Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt of Home and 3 Others