Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Raju Chaudhary vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 9288 ALL

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 9288 ALL
Judgement Date : 28 August, 2025

Allahabad High Court

Raju Chaudhary vs State Of U.P. on 28 August, 2025

Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:152696
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 920 of 2025   
 
   Raju Chaudhary    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P.    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Ram Anuj Prajapati   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 65
 
   
 
 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.      

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Ram Anuj Prajapati, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.436 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Sarnath, District- Varanasi, during the pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites in May, 2022, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of dowry, thereby led her to death on 12.10.2022 at about 11:00 p.m.

5. The applicant and other family members are stated to have told the informant that deceased is admitted in BHU Trauma Center and she was found there and the doctor had advised her to take the victim to some other higher center, whereby she took her daughter to Ganga Seva Sadan, Manduadeeh where she expired.

6. The informant is even stated to have given an application at the police station Sarnath, Varanasi which was not registered at the behest of applicant and other accused persons. As such, the FIR was subsequently instituted on 24.10.2022.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

7. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

8. The FIR is delayed by about ten days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

9. The informant was present at the time of inquest proceedings which were conducted on 14.10.2022 itself, but she did not care to institute the FIR. The FIR has been instituted subsequently as an afterthought after legal consultation. The said explanation given by the prosecution for the delay in institution of FIR cannot be believed as it is stated to be a dowry death.

10. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.

11. The applicant as a bona fide act had rushed the deceased to hospital and admitted her at BHU Trauma Center, Varanasi, which is but evident from the FIR itself.

12. There is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future and the applicant is languishing in jail since 2.4.2023, as such, he is incarcerated in jail for about two years and four months. The fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated.

13. 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.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

14. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.

CONCLUSION:

15. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned trial court. As per the said status report dated 7.8.2025, six witnesses have been examined.

16. In the case of Thulia Kali vs The State of T.N., AIR 1973 SC 501, the Supreme Court has held that the First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account, or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation.

17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that there is delay of about ten days in institution of FIR and the prosecution evidence is going on as also in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in Thulia Kali (supra), and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicant- Raju Chaudhary, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

19. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

20. 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.

21. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

August 28, 2025

Vikas Verma

 

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter