Mohd Yaseen vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 9181 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mohd Yaseen vs State Of U.P. on 26 August, 2025

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:149674
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25147 of 2025
 
Court No. - 65
 
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Amarnath Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant, Sri R. P. Patel, 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. 75 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sandeepanghat, District- Kaushambi 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 Muslim Rites in November, 2022. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of Rs. one lakh and a bike as dowry, thereby leading her to death on 05.04.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant is husband of the deceased person and he has nothing to do the said offence. Cause of death is due to asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. There is no criminal history of the applicant.The applicant is in jail since 09.04.2025 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 A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt and it was instituted after 13 hours of the incident. 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 fact that the deceased has 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 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.

August 26, 2025

Sharad/-