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

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 32 of 2026 under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352, 309(4), 317(2) BNS, Police Station Haiderganj, District Ayodhya.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was arrested from his house, after that, he was implicated in a case under Sections 392, 411 IPC on the basis of confessional statement. Thereafter, mother of the applicant filed a complaint case against police personnel in the year 2012, and in the aforesaid case, statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC have already been recorded and the said matter is listed on 25.06.2026. He further submits that as the mother of the applicant has filed complaint case against police personnel, the police officials of the concerned police station were annoyed, as a result, the applicant was continuously being implicated in a number of cases by the police and his involvement has been shown in 26 cases. He next submits that there is a dispute in the village related to cutting of a tree and the FIR of the case in question was lodged with the association of the informant on the basis of

¶15

BAIL No. 4018 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

concocted facts. He also submits that in the FIR, it is admitted that informant received grievous injuries on his hands and legs, but no injury is found on his leg. He lastly submits that the applicant is in jail since 9.03.2026, he is ready to cooperate in the proceedings, hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant. However, he does not dispute the fact that in the FIR, it is alleged that grievous injuries were caused on the hands and legs of the informant, but no injury is found on his leg.

¶19

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the bail application as well as injury report placed by learned A.G.A., it is evident that there is no injury on the leg of the injured person. Therefore, it is a fit case for bail.

¶20

The bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let the applicant- Rahul Dubey who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to following conditions:

¶22

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶23

(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 or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶25

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date

¶26

BAIL No. 4018 of 2026

¶27

3

¶28

fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A I.P.C./269 B.N.S.

¶29

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 B.N.S.S. may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A I.P.C./209 B.N.S.

¶30

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶31

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

¶32

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶33

June 11, 2026 Arpan

¶34

Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rahul Dubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Dubey 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

Similar cases

Aman Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Surendra Kumar Sharma Alias Salikram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Ramshree vs State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Mohd. Ahmad @ Saffauwwa vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Siyaram Bind vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Rajesh Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko