Allahabad High Court
Shyamu Thakur vs State Of U.P. on 4 August, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130626
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46141 of 2024
Applicant :- Shyamu Thakur
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Patel,Pradeep Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Alok Kumar Singh,G.A.,Mukesh Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Surendra Mohan Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mukesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.200 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Shyamdeurawa, District- Maharajganj with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu rites on 23.6.2023, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of Rs.1 lakh and a Pulsar motorcycle as dowry, thereby leading her to death on 18.7.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The cause of death could not be ascertained, as such, viscera of the deceased was preserved and Chlorpyrifos chemical was found in it. As such, the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that out of the said wedlock a baby-boy was born and he is living in the family of the applicant only. The applicant has to take care of his son, as such, he may be enlarged on bail. He is languishing in jail since 20.7.2024. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. He is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is injury sustained by the deceased person on her neck which indicates that effort was so made that the deceased may not survive. It is further argued that uterus of the deceased was found gravid, as such, she was found pregnant at the time of offence. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
8. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned court. As per the said status report dated 21.7.2025, statement of the informant has been recorded as PW-1 and his cross-examination is going on.
9. The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 909, has held that once the trial has commenced, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally granted to the accused after the charge has been framed. It should also not be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the deceased person having expired within the precincts of house of the applicant and the cause of death being consuming of said chemical in addition to it there is injury on the neck of the deceased person and she was found pregnant at the time of offence, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
11. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
12. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
13. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 4.8.2025/ Vikas
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
