Dhiru Awasthi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate who has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the applicant (which is taken on record), learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State.

¶11

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in FIR No. 0557 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 140(1), 103(1), 3(5), 238 of the B.N.S. (old Sections 323, 364, 302, 34, 201 of IPC) Police Station Shahabad, DistrictHardoi is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶12

Brief facts of the present case are that an FIR dated 22.08.2025 has been lodged under Sections 115(2) & 140(1) of BNS, 2023 (old Sections 323 & 364 IPC) against four named accused persons including the present applicant alleging therein that the son of the informant aged about 33 years left the house at 06.00 PM on 21.08.2025 and he did not return, who had a fight with accused persons in Gadhi Beer Bar. The informant was afraid that his son had a fight with Pawan Bhardwaj, Musshi Khan, Dhiru Awasthi (the present applicant) and Pintu and since then he was under apprehension of any untoward incident.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been made accused in the present case on the basis of statement of the eye witness i.e. an employee of the Beer Bar who in his statement had stated that all these persons had a fight on 21.08.2025 inside and outside the Beer Bar and he had seen the named accused persons going behind the deceased.

¶14

It is further submitted that during the investigation, in Parcha no. 2, the police had traced out the CCTV footage from a shop 600 metres away from the place of incident in which the deceased was seen going alone quietly and thereafter his presence was not found in any other camera footage and thereafter the body of the deceased was found in the pond. In the CCTV footage, the applicant was not seen.

¶15

BAIL No. 12353 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

It is further submitted that during the post mortem, no injury was found on the body of the deceased as it was decomposed and death assessed in the medical opinion is seven days prior to the date of postmortem and seven days prior to that would be 22.08.2025 whereas, the incident is alleged to be of 21.08.2025.

¶18

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 12.09.2025.

¶19

It is further submitted that there is no eye witness to the incident.

¶20

On the other hand, Learned Additional Government Advocate and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for grant of bail and have submitted that the main accused Pintu Verma picked the deceased from his house with an intention to kill him and has submitted that the applicant was last seen with the deceased outside the Beer Bar but are unable to dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶21

In reply, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is not Pintu Verma. It is the Bail application of Dhiru Awasthi.

¶22

Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have relied upon the bayan majeed of the same eye witness i.e. an employee of the Beer Bar, who has stated that the applicant along with other accused persons had thrown the deceased in the pond with an intention to kill him.

¶23

In reply thereto, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that if the deceased was thrown alive in the pond then the water must have been found in the lungs and the stomach, but that is not so, which is not disputed by learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA and secondly, the alleged eye-witness was also not seen in the CCTV footage in which the deceased was found by the Police going quietly alone.

¶24

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, prima-facie, it appears that there is no eye witness to the incident; it appears that the deceased was going all alone quietly and the same was found by the police in the CCTV footage during the investigation in which the applicant was not seen; hence, it is a fit case in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶25

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶26

Let the applicant Dhiru Awasthi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-

¶27

BAIL No. 12353 of 2025

¶28

3

¶29

(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶33

(v) 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.

¶34

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶35

(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶36

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶37

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶38

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this order.

¶39

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶40

May 14, 2026

¶41

Nitesh

¶42

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dhiru Awasthi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhiru Awasthi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Anil Kumar Jaiswal vs Amit Kumar Ghosh Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Services Lko. and Another

Ram Lal Rana @ Ram Lal vs Sri Ranvir Prasad Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko.

Shanti Kaithvas and 94 Others vs Partha Sarthi Sen Sharma Addl. Chief Secy. Madical Health / Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Sunita vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rakesh Kumar vs Sri Vijay Kumar Gupta, Tehsildar Tehsil Milkipur Ayodhya

Jasvindar Singh vs Ramjeet Yadav and another