Allowed

Rishi Raj v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2026ABAIL/1371/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case of abetment of suicide (Section 306 IPC). The court found the counter affidavit disclosed no adverse facts and extended interim anticipatory bail till disposal of the trial, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail of applicant Rishi Raj extended till disposal of trial, subject to five conditions; liberty to Investigating Agency to seek vacation on default.

Rishi Raj vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1371 of 2025

Rishi Raj

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

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

¶9

Court No. - 13

¶10

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶11

Counter affidavit filed by Sri Shiv Kumar, Advocate alongwith Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No. 2 in the Court today is taken on record.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

¶13

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant in relation to FIR/Case Crime No.0170 of 2019, under Section- 306 IPC, P.S.Sohramau, District- Unnao.

¶14

It appears from the order sheet that vide order dated 11.12.2025, this Court had protected the interest of the applicant. The order dated 11.12.2025, referred, reads as under:-

¶15

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶16

2. The present application has been filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in FIR No.170 of 2019, under Sections 306 IPC, P.S. Sohramau, District Unnao.

¶17

3. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that in terms of FIR it was alleged that daughter of the informant aged about 17 years was being harassed by the applicant and on account of said harassment she committed suicide by consuming poison. Post mortem report on record does not indicate presence of any injury. The applicant has been prosecuted for offence under Section 306.

¶18

4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer.

¶19

5. Considering the post mortem report and the allegations prima facie material to suggest abetment at the instance of the applicant is missing. Considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno and Anr vs Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC Online SC 1387, prima facie, case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶20

6. In the event of arrest, let the applicant Rishi Raj be released on anticipatory bail in the abovesaid first information report number till

¶21

ABAIL No. 1371 of 2025

¶22

¶23

submission of the charge-sheet on his furnishing personal bonds of Rs 5000/- to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned with the following conditions:

¶24

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and will co-operate with investigation;

¶25

(ii) 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 and

¶26

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶27

7. Issue notice to respondent no. 2 returnable at an early date.

¶28

8. Steps be taken within two weeks.

¶29

9. List after six weeks."

¶30

The learned counsel for the opposite party has failed to demonstrate from the counter affidavit that there is any adversarial fact to the facts which have been pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned AGA has also failed to point out any fact on which basis it can be inferred that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case.

¶31

In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant- Rishi Raj till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:-

¶32

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶33

(ii) that 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/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶34

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶35

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶36

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶37

In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this order.

¶38

February 4, 2026 Arun/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶39

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rishi Raj v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishi Raj v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sunita Gautam @ Nasreen vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohit Kumar @ Kaka vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Arjun Bhargava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Juvenile Delinquent v Thru. His Father X vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Mohammad Yasin vs Sri Upendra Gupta Basic Shiksha Adhikari Distt. Sultanpur and Another

Sandeep vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko