Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40750 of 2024 Satish Yadav State of U.P. Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Kumar Singh, Rajrshi Gupta, Rakesh Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dharmala Yadav, G.A., Ramesh Chand, Sukesh Kumar, Vindeshwari Prasad Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
Legal Reasoning
1. List has been revised. Counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the informant and supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant are taken on record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has complied the order dated 27.08.2025. 3. Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vindeshwari Prasad, learned counsel for the informant as well as Ms. Ifra Islam, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 71 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Phoolpur, District- Varanasi, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 19.11.2019, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the victim to cruelty for demand of Rs.10 lacs and one motorcycle as dowry, thereby led her to death on 31.03.2024 at 02 :30 pm. 2 BAIL No. 40750 of 2024 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about more than one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that it is admitted by the informant in the FIR itself that he got the knowledge of the incident on 31.03.2024 at about 02:30 pm. It is admitted by the informant in his statement recorded during trial that he was present at the time of inquest proceedings and even his son was present, who have been arrayed as panch witness in the inquest proceedings and he did not care to institute the FIR by then and had instituted the FIR after the cremation of the deceased person. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the trial is moving on and the applicant is languishing in jail since 16.04.2024. Learned counsel has further argued that deceased was suffering from cervicitis and could not conceive, as such, she was undergoing treatment for it, the said document has been filed as Annexure 7. Learned counsel has placed much reliance on the document of the treatment of the deceased dated 19.03.2024, which is about 12 days before the incident, which indicates that the deceased was having pain in her abdomen and legs and she wanted to conceive. 9. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the consent given by the deceased person on 26.03.2024., whereby she has stated that she was married for three years and could not bear a child, as such, she wanted to get herself examined and she had also expressed her no objection to the said treatment being given to her. Learned counsel has stated that subsequently, the prosecution has tried to take up the case that the deceased was pregnant and it has been mentioned in the statement of the doctor conducting the autopsy that the uterus was gravid size was 21cmx18cm, weight was 980gm after cutting it, fluid was clear with attached placenta by cord length is 14 cm and fetus length was 20 cm, weighing 160 gm. 10. Learned counsel has stated that the said statement of doctor is without 3 BAIL No. 40750 of 2024 any basis even the post mortem report indicates that the uterus of the deceased was found non-gravid. Even, the word NAD is mentioned there, which indicates that nothing abnormal was detected, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication of the applicant. The said post mortem report also is contradictory to the treatment papers of the deceased person and even there is an ultrasound report which indicates that the deceased was not pregnant just before the incident, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. 11. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the husband and he is main accused person. The deceased has expired within the precincts of his house, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 13. This Court had called for a status of trial. As per status report dated 05.08.2025, two witnesses have been examined and application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the prosecution, which was disposed of on 29.07.2025 and the case has been fixed for remaining prosecution evidence on 08.08.2025. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay of about one day in the FIR and also the status of trial as only two witnesses have been examined till date and anomaly in the medical report and the statement of the doctor conducting the autopsy to the autopsy report 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. 15. Let the applicant- Satish Yadav, 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, 4 BAIL No. 40750 of 2024 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. 16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 17. 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. September 4, 2025 Priya (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad