Rajendra Prasad and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21177

Court No. - 67

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 341 of 2025

Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Shashank Shekhar Pandey, learned AGA for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 947 of 2024, under sections 80(2), 85 BNS and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Robertsganj, District- Sonbhadra.

¶8

Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no.1 is the father-in-law and applicant no.2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The marriage of the deceased was performed with the son of the applicants on 07.12.2020. The deceased died on 01.12.2024. At the time of inquest, the informant was present and he was one of the inquest witness. The first information report was lodged on 07.12.2024. There is no explanation for the delay in lodging the first information report. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the post-mortem report, the cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. The viscera has been sent for chemical analysis on 27.12.2024. The report is yet to be received. The husband of the deceased Anuj Kumar has been arrested. Vague and general allegations have been levelled against the applicants. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. It is next submitted that the investigation is going on and the applicants have apprehension of their arrest in the above mentioned case.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the application for grant of anticipatory bail be confined only till the submission of the police report.

¶11

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, in particular the fact, that there is no explanation for the delay in lodging the first information report, the delay is fatal to the prosecution case, as per the post-mortem report the cause of death could not be ascertained, viscera was preserved, the viscera has been sent for chemical analysis on 27.12.2024, the report is yet to be received, vague and general allegations have been levelled against the applicants,

¶12

without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicants Rajendra Prasad and Meena Devi be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 193 (3) BNSS on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

(i) the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

(ii) the applicants 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶16

(iii) the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶17

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶18

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants.

¶19

The applicants are directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶20

The application stands disposed of.

¶21

Order Date :- 14.2.2025

¶22

Lbm/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajendra Prasad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Manjeet Alias Bhalu and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamlesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Abhishek Rajbhar and 2 Others vs State of U.P.

Kadir @ Aadil vs State of U.P.

Awadhesh Rajput vs State of U.P.

Smt. Anjali vs State of U.P. and Another