Allahabad High Court
Rahul Rajbhar vs State Of U.P. on 30 July, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:126666
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26044 of 2025
Applicant :- Rahul Rajbhar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar,Ram Vilas
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, 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.58 of 2024, under Sections 323, 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Chandwak, District Jaunpur 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 26.11.2020. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of a motorcycle as dowry, thereby led her to death on 14.03.2024 at about 6:00 p.m.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about five hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the deceased was not satisfied with the status of the family of applicant, as such, had committed suicide. There is no criminal history of the applicant.The applicant is in jail since 10.04.2024 and 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 A.G.A. has 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.
8. 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.
9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
10. 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.
11. 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 :- 30.7.2025
(Ravi Kant)
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
