Vikas Yadav vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30252

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2115 of 2025

Applicant :- Vikas Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hare Ram Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.107 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Bharatkoop, District Chitrakoot, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per the prosecution case, in brief, the complainant- Kailash Yadav, who is father of the deceased-Arti Devi lodged F.I.R. on 12.07.2024 against the applicant- Vikas Yadav and his family members, namely, Maiki, Ram Nihor and Vishnu, who are husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased making allegation inter-alia that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized on 21.06.2022 with the applicant. In the marriage, he had given sufficient dowry as per his capacity but her in-laws were not satisfied and there was consistent demand of a motorcycle and Rs.1,00,000/-. On 09.07.2024 at about 09:30 PM, his daughter was done to death by hanging. Information about the said incident was given on 09.07.2024 at 10:00 O' Clock in the night by mother-in-law and sister-in-law of his daughter. F.I.R. also alleges that prior to the incident, at about 07:00 PM, his daughter had told her mother and Bhabhi over phone that the accused persons are abusing and beating her and are threatening to kill her by hanging. On the said information, when he along with other family members went to her matrimonial home at 02:50 O' Clock then they did not tell anything. On 10.07.2024, when they went to police station then came to know that dead body of his daughter is lying in District Hospital, Chitrakoot.

¶9

Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that on 09.07.2024 at about 09:30 PM deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. Information about the said

¶10

incident was immediately given by the applicant to police on 10.07.2024 at about 06:31 O' clock, on which, the police came at the spot. In the meantime, the mother of the applicant also gave information about the incident to the parents and other family members of the deceased. On receiving said information they also reached there and inquest proceedings were conducted in their presence. In the inquest proceedings, applicant as well as other persons from the side of the deceased were also punch witnesses and at that time, no allegation of any kind was raised against the applicant and his family members. Thereafter, post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 10.07.2024 at 02:00 PM, in which cause of death of the deceased was found asphyxia, as a result of ante-mortem hanging. It is also pointed out that apart from the ligature mark, no other injury was found on the body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was also cremated by the applicant on 10.07.2024 itself. Thereafter, F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the deceased after two days on 12.07.2024 in order to settle his personal score on the false and concocted allegations. Much emphasis has been given by contending that except the oral allegation of demand of dowry, there is no corroborative material against the applicant. It is further submitted that co-accused, namely, Maiki Devi and Ram Nihor, who are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased have been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 18.11.2024 & 23.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.42123 of 2024 & 41944 of 2024 respectively. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.07.2024 having no criminal history to his credit and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.

¶11

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but he could not dispute the factum of the case as argued on behalf of the applicant.

¶12

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that it is not in dispute that after the incident of committing suicide by the wife of the applicant, he immediately gave information to the police. The mother and Bhabhi of the applicant have also given information to the parents of the deceased, which shows natural conduct of the applicant and in-laws of the deceased and the same is also one of the relevant

¶13

factors for considering bail of accused in such a matter. It is also not in dispute that the family members of the deceased were also present at the time of inquest but they did not raise any allegation against the applicant, who had also participated in all the ritual and had not absconded. So far as one of the allegations of the prosecution that before the incident at about 07:00 PM, the deceased has made a phone call to her mother and Bhabhi and made allegation of her harassment is concerned, I also find that nothing is on record to corroborate the said allegation.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶15

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

¶16

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶17

(ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶19

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶21

It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail only and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

¶22

Order Date :- 4.3.2025//Sanjeet

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vikas Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rafik vs State of U.P.

Umakant vs State of U.P.

Rajnath Singh vs State of U.P.

Rahul vs State of U.P.

Aman vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep vs State of U.P.