Yogesh vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 3409 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Yogesh vs State Of U.P. on 6 August, 2025

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132651
 

 
Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26893 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Yogesh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh Bais
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
 

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh Bais, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.51 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Biharigarh, District Saharanpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. There is no specific demand of dowry mentioned in the FIR, as such, the ingredients of Section 80(2) B.N.S. are not fulfilled. The FIR is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. There is no criminal history of the applicant.The applicant is in jail since 01.06.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt and the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such, he is not entitled for bail.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the promptness of FIR and the deceased having expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible 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.

10. 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 :- 6.8.2025

(Ravi Kant)

(Justice Krishan Pahal)