Dan Bahadur v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home
Case at a glance
- Bench
- PANKAJ BHATIA
Outcome
Allowed
In view thereof, the application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ss. 80(2), 85
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Considering the post mortem report and there being nothing specific against the applicant of having caused physical or mental harassment of the deceased before her death with regard to demand of dowry, however, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the applicant who…
Judgment
Shri Ramesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.
The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.215 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) BNS and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Bikapur, District Ayodhya.
Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the FIR in question was lodged alleging that the sister of the informant was married to son of the applicant. Subsequently she was killed on account of non payment of dowry. The cause of death as per the post mortem report is ante mortem hanging. The applicant is the father in law.
Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail application.
Operative part
Considering the post mortem report and there being nothing specific against the applicant of having caused physical or mental harassment of the deceased before her death with regard to demand of dowry, however, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the applicant who is in jail since 10.7.2025 and has no criminal history is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.
Let the applicant Dan Bahadur be released on bail in aforesaid FIR 2 BAIL No. 7886 of 2025 number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions: (a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and (c) 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. October 28, 2025 J. K. Dinkar (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view thereof, the application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 80(2), 85.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.