Dinesh Rawat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3237 of 2025

Dinesh Rawat

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jai Shukla, Anoop Srivastava, Avinash Pratap Singh, Dilip Kumar Singh, Manoj Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 23

¶10

HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶12

This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant, who is involved in F.I.R. No.135 of 2025, under Sections 87 and 137(2) of B.N.S., Police Station- Para, District- Lucknow.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that according to statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., copy of which is annexed as Annexure-C.A.5 to the counter affidavit, the victim, who was having affair with the applicant, had gone to Delhi along with him on her own volition where she stayed 3-4 days and returned back to her home on 21.02.2025; no physical relations were established between them. She also stated in her statement that she would marry with the applicant upon attaining the age of majority. He further submits that the app licant has remained in jail since 23.02.2025 and the applicant has no criminal history. 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. Hence, the applicant may be granted bail.

¶14

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.

¶15

On due consideration to the facts that the applicant is languishing in jail

¶16

BAIL No. 3237 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

since 23.02.2025; the applicant has no criminal history as well as in the statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., the victim had stated that she was having love affair with the applicant with whom she had gone to Delhi on her own volition where she stayed for 3-4 days and returned back to her home and no physical relations was established between them and without entering into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant Dinesh Rawat be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶21

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶22

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court, either personally or through his counsel.

¶23

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.

¶24

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.

¶25

March 9, 2026

¶26

Anand/-

¶27

(Rajeev Bharti,J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dinesh Rawat v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Rawat v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Sukhraj vs Union of India Thru. N.C.B. Zonal Unit Lko.

Rahul Kori vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko

Nidhi Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homw Lko.

Ram Sajeevan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Vijay Pal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Manju Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.