Anil Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko.

On a query being put, learned AGA submitted that he has complete instructions in the matter, as such, this Court proceeded to hear the application seeking bail on merits.

¶11

Heard Sri Bharat Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶12

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.339 of 2025, under Sections 80, 85 BNS and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police StationMohanganj, District-Amethi.

¶13

While pressing the instant application, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶14

It is stated that son of the applicant is Sandeep and his marriage was solemnized with the deceased (Mamta d/o informant-Siyaram), about 8 months ago from the date i.e. 01.12.2025, on which date the deceased committed suicide.

¶15

It is further stated that marriage between the son of the applicant and deceased was love marriage. This fact can be deduced from the application dated 02.12.2025 preferred by the informant before the In-Charge, Police Station-Mohanganj, DistrictAmethi.

¶16

It is further submitted that the application dated 02.12.2025 preferred by the informant before the In-Charge, Police Station-Mohanganj, District-Amethi, would also indicate that in the said application, the informant has not levelled any allegation to attract the offence under Section(s) 85, 80 BNS and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Obviously for the reason that in the marriage dowry was not demanded as it was a love marriage.

¶17

It is further stated that it appears that after taking advise a written report was submitted by the informant and based upon the said written report FIR No. 339/2025 was lodged at Police Station-Mohanganj, District-Amethi on 05.12.2025 under Section(s) 85, 80 BNS and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶18

It is further stated that a perusal of FIR would indicate that general allegations have been levelled against the instant applicant, sister-in-law of the deceased and motherin-law of the deceased and husband of the deceased.

¶19

It is further stated that in fact it is a case of suicide, which can be inferred from the injury found by the autopsy surgeon on the body of the deceased i.e. ligature mark present around the neck and cause of death is asphyxia due to antimortem injury and reasons for committing suicide are not known to the applicant.

¶20

BAIL No. 566 of 2026

¶21

2

¶22

It is further submitted that the applicant having no criminal history, is in jail since 06.12.2025, is entitled to be released on bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial and would also not influence the prosecution witnesses.

¶23

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the applicant. However, he could not dispute the above contention made by the applicant's counsel.

¶24

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and also the cause of death indicated in the postmortem report as also fact of marriage as also general allegations have been levelled against the entire family of the applicant and without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the application has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

¶25

Let the applicant- Anil Kumar be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned forthwith. Applicant is also directed to furnish two reliable sureties, out of which one shall be the family member of the accused-applicant, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶29

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶30

(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.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

(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.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

Application is disposed of.

¶37

January 30, 2026 Jyoti/-

¶38

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶39

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

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. 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

Prerana Srivastava vs Sri Surendra Tiwari, Secy. Basic Shiksha Parishad U.P. Prayagraj

Kamlesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Akhilesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Kaushelndra Kumar Pandey and 77 Others vs Amit Kumar Singh Distt. Basic Edu. Officer Distt. Gonda

Mohd. Tariq Khan @ Rahul vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sachin Kumar Gupta @ Sachin Lal Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.