Allahabad High Court
BAIL/12849/2025 of RAJ KUMAR DHANUK Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO on 18 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12849 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.331 of 2025, under
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12849 of 2025
Court No. - 12
HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.331 of 2025, under Sections 64(1), 333, 351(3) of BNS, Police Station Makhi, District Unnao.
3. In terms of the FIR lodged on 06.08.2025, it was alleged that the informant had three children and on 02.08.2025, in between 11:30 to 12:00 night, the applicant entered into the home and wrong was committed on her and when she shouted, the elder daughter of the informant got up and witnessed the incident and when the informant raised hue and cry, the applicant ran away. A similar statement was given under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS. The medical on record does not corroborate any of the said allegations.
4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer.
5. Considering the age of the victim, which is around 28 years and there being substantial delay in lodging the FIR without any explanation and the medical not corroborating the allegation and the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is languishing in jail since 07.08.2025, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Raj Kumar Dhanuk .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko .....Opposite Party(s)
6. Let the applicant Raj Kumar Dhanuk be released on bail in the abovesaid first information report number on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the 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. December 18, 2025 akverma BAIL No. 12849 of 2025 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench