Gaurav Yadav vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50516

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11453 of 2025

Applicant :- Gaurav Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Yadav,Vivek Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned Advocate filed his power on behalf of the informant, today in the Court, which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri N.I. Zafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vivek Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I for the State.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 11 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238(A), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station Basrehar, District Etawah during pendency of the trial.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged on 15.02.2025 against applicant and co-accused Ravi Dohre and according to the FIR on 17.01.2025 applicant along with co-accused committed the murder of the son of the informant and on 18.01.2025 police informed him about the recovery of dead body of his son.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits, as per FIR, murder of the deceased was committed on 17.01.2025 and informant received an information with regard to recovery of his dead body on 18.01.2025 but in spite of that FIR of the present case was lodged on 15.02.2025 i.e. after about one month and this inordinate delay in the lodging the FIR itself suggests that it is based on false and frivolous facts.

¶11

He further submits, there is no eye witness account and except suspicion there is no cogent evidence against the applicant.

¶12

He next submits, it was a case in which deceased died

¶13

accidentally and this fact is even evident from his inquest report, which has been annexed at page-37 of the paper-book. He next submits, even doctor who conducted the autopsy also opined that the injury sustained by the deceased could not be sustained by assault.

¶14

He next submits, it is a case in which accidental death has been converted into homicidal death after one month and on the basis of previous enmity, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

¶15

He further submits, on 15.02.2025 FIR was lodged but as prima facie it appears to be a case of accidental death, therefore, on 16.02.2025 next day final report has been submitted but thereafter further investigation was started and during further investigation, the above mentioned evidence of last seen was surfaced. He further submits, there is absolutely no cogent evidence against the applicant which can connect him with the instant crime.

¶16

He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 25.02.2025.

¶17

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that actually applicant is the person who committed the murder of the deceased along with co-accused Ravi Dohre and as informant of the case was in deep grief due to the murder of his son, therefore, earlier he could not lodge the FIR of the present case but they could not dispute the fact that it is a case in which there is no eye witness account and even there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record, which can connect him with the instant crime.

¶18

They further could not dispute the fact that from the inquest report, it reflects, deceased died due to accident. They further could not dispute the fact that as per autopsy surgeon injury sustained by the deceased could not be caused by the assault. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶20

However, as per allegation, made in the FIR applicant and coaccused Ravi Dohre committed the murder of the son of the informant but it reflects, FIR of the present case was lodged after

¶21

about one month from the date of receiving information of the death of the deceased and no proper explanation has been given by the informant in this regard.

¶22

Further, admittedly there is no eye witness account and it reflects, except bald and verbal allegation there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record which can connect him with the instant crime.

¶23

Further, from the inquest report dated 18.01.2025 it reflects, deceased died due to accident and even from the statement of the autopsy surgeon it reflects, injuries sustained by the deceased could not be sustained by the assault. Considering all these facts, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that actually it is a case of accidental death but after one month on the basis of false allegation due to previous enmity applicant has been made accused in the present matter, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

¶24

Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 25.02.2025.

¶25

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶26

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶27

Let the applicant - Gaurav Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶28

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶29

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶30

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶31

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the

¶32

prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶33

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.

¶34

Order Date :- 8.4.2025 AK Pandey

¶35

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gaurav Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jogindar Nishad vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Sharma vs State of U.P.

Ankit Kashyap vs State of U.P.

Shivam vs State of U.P.

Bharat and 3 Others vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar vs State of U.P.