Deendayal Sahani Urf Saddu Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110330

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9830 of 2025

Applicant :- Deendayal Sahani Urf Saddu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ankesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Ankesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 105 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police StationKapilvastu, District-Siddharth Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 01.06.2023, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the victim to cruelty for demand of dowry, thereby leading her to death on 02.12.2024 at about 07:00 PM.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is further argued that the deceased had committed suicide out of depression and the inquest proceedings indicate that the door was found locked from inside and was broken open in the presence of Magistrate. The applicant is Panch witness No.5 in the inquest proceedings and subsequent to it, the FIR has been instituted the next evening i.e. on 03.12.2024 at about 6:24 PM. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons.

¶11

It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is

¶12

languishing in jail since 05.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the fact that FIR is delayed by one day and there is no explanation to the said delay caused coupled with the fact that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant- Deendayal Sahani Urf Saddu , who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶19

Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Karan

¶20

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Deendayal Sahani Urf Saddu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deendayal Sahani Urf Saddu v. State of U.P.

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