Allahabad High Court
Pushpendra @ Pushpendra Dubey Alias Raj ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 4 September, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:53467
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1950 of 2024
Pushpendra @ Pushpendra Dubey Alias Raj Pandit
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ramakar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Ghanshyam Tripathi
Court No. - 12
HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.
1. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.22 of 2024, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station -Dhanpatganj, District - Sultanpurr.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. This Court vide order dated 28.08.2024 while granting interim protection to the applicant has passed the following order:-
"Heard learned counsel the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/FIR No. 22/2024, under Sections 306 I.P.C., P.S. Dhanpatganj, District Sultanpur.
In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 11.02.2024 at about 2:00 pm, the complainant received a mobile call regarding a parcel belonging to her daughter (deceased) as she was not picking up her phone. He told on the phone that his daughter is at home and the parcel may be given at home or at the shop of Dileep. After receiving the call, he called his daughter several times but she did not respond. At about 4:00 pm, when he went to home with his wife, he found his daughter hanged. The complainant informed the police that the applicant who was a delivery boy used to harass the deceased and due to that his daughter committed suicide.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR has been lodged after a delay of 13 days. The applicant has been falsely implicated. No offence under Section 306 IPC is made out against the applicant. The applicant was having cordial relations with the deceased which is evident from the photographs and chatting, copy of which are on record as Annexure No. 2.
It has been further submitted that the deceased died due to poverty and also due to excessive loan on her family. Her family members were unable to deposit her fee and due to the marriage of her sister, the pressure of the loan was too much and i.e. why she was under depression. The conduct of the complainant is under suspicion as for a period of 13 days no information was given to the police. It is further submitted that when the residents of the locality pressured the complainant, he falsely implicated the applicant. There is no evidence to show or to attract the ingredients of Section 107 read with Section 306 IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not a previous convict; he has no criminal antecedents and he undertakes to cooperate in the investigation.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail application submitting that the deceased and the applicant were in continuous touch with each other. Perusal of the call details of the applicant shows that on the date of death of the deceased, the applicant spoken to her several times.
Replying to this, learned counsel for the applicant submits that relationship is admitted to him, but, the cause of death is clearly evident from the whatsapp chat of the applicant and the deceased.
Issue notice to respondent No. 2.
Steps be taken within a week.
List on 19.09.2024.
On due consideration to the submissions advanced as well as perusal of the record, prima facie, the ingredients of the offence under Section 107 read with Section 306 IPC appear to be missing, so also considering the fact that the applicant is not a previous convict and having no criminal history and also considering the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, as an interim measure, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.
The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.
In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.
Learned Addl. Government Advocate may file counter affidavit in the meantime. "
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that allegation in the F.I.R. are baseless and applicant has been falsely implicated. The investigating officer has filed the charge sheet without collecting the cogent and tangible evidence. He submits that in compliance of the order dated 28.08.2024, applicant has filed the bail bonds and has been released on interim anticipatory bail by the learned trial court. Applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial. Applicant has not misused the liberty of interim protection granted by this Court.
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
6. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation and he shall cooperate in the trial, the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2024 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.
7. It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed.
(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)
September 4, 2025
Saurabh Yadav/-
