Rajesh @ Guddu vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115996

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18578 of 2025

Applicant :- Rajesh @ Guddu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Upendra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Raghvendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 266 of 2024, under Sections 85, 115(2), 80 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police StationNidhauli, District- Etah, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 18.4.2018, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of a car as dowry, thereby leading her to death on 29.12.2024.

¶10

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 one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the inquest proceedings were complete on 29.12.2024 at 11:50 p.m. itself and the informant was Panch witness no.1 in the inquest proceedings and his other family members were also present at that time but the FIR has been instituted about fourteen hours of the inquest proceedings that too after legal consultation.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.

¶13

Although two abrasions were observed on mandible and clavicle of the deceased person, but the same may be caused at the time of suicide committed by the deceased as she was found suspended to a window. The applicant and deceased had two sons out of said wedlock, as such, he had no occasion to commit the said offence.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed much reliance on the documents of the treatment of the deceased person who was subjected to psychiatric treatment at Agra and the said documents have been filed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed with bail application. The deceased had committed suicide being under some psychiatric stress, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail.

¶15

It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.1.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant and the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. There being demand of dowry, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the documents pertaining to the psychiatric treatment of the deceased person and also the delay in institution of FIR, 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- Rajesh @ Guddu , 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.

¶19

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Vikas

¶24

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh @ Guddu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh @ Guddu 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

Fool Singh vs State of U.P.

Subhash vs State of U.P.

Jahid Ali vs State of U.P.

Chhotey Lal vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar vs State of U.P.

Rohan Singh vs State of U.P.