Dismissed¶¶18

Ghanshyam Chauhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chif Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Allahabad HC21 May 2025BAIL/327/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ghanshyam Chauhan bail rejected; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 327 of 2025; Case Crime No. 127 of 2024; Sections 108 B.N.S.; Police Station Sadullanagar; District Balrampur; informant's daughter (aged 21) suicide by hanging on 21.10.2024; Asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging; ligature mark; multiple unexplained ante-mortem contusions; parity with co-accused Radhe/Radhey Shyam Chauhan denied; co-accused granted bail 16.12.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12949 of 2024; charge sheet 29.11.2024; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Subhash Vidyarthi J.; Order Date 21.5.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:30283.

What did the court decide?

The facts of the case do not warrant exercise of the Court's discretion in favour of the applicant by enlarging him on bail. ¶¶12

Ghanshyam Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chif Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, prosecuted in Case Crime No. 127 of 2024 under Sections 108 B.N.S., should be enlarged on bail. +1 more

¶¶12

Court's answer

The facts of the case do not warrant exercise of the Court's discretion in favour of the applicant by enlarging him on bail.

¶¶12

Ratio / Principle

Bail on parity with co-accused Radhe Shyam is refused: the coordinate-bench order dated 16.12.2024 granting bail to the co-accused took no note of the numerous post-mortem injuries and did not refer to the statements of independent witnesses, and therefore does not make out a grant of bail for the applicant on the ground of parity.

¶¶15

Key takeaways

The numerous ante-mortem injuries recorded in the post-mortem report support the allegation that the deceased was harassed by the accused persons, and those injuries remain unexplained by the applicant; unlike the 72-year-old co-accused with no criminal history, the applicant was keeping the deceased without marrying her. These considerations weigh against bail.ratio¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail refused; parity with co-accused denied. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, Judge, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 15), order dated 21.5.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:30283) rejected CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 327 of 2025 filed by applicant Ghanshyam Chauhan seeking bail in Case Crime No. 127 of 2024, under Sections 108 B.N.S., registered at Police Station Sadullanagar, District Balrampur. The F.I.R. (lodged 24.10.2024) alleged that the applicant had enticed away the informant's 21-year-old daughter, was keeping her at his home without marrying her, and that the accused persons harassed her until she committed suicide by hanging on 21.10.2024; the inquest noted only a ligature mark, while the post-mortem recorded a ligature mark and multiple ante-mortem contusions, death being due to asphyxia from ante-mortem hanging; a charge sheet followed on 29.11.2024 against the applicant and his father. Rejecting the plea of parity with co-accused Radhe(y) Shyam Chauhan — granted bail on 16.12.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12949 of 2024 — the Court held that the earlier order had not considered the post-mortem injuries nor referred to the independent witnesses' statements, that the unexplained injuries corroborated the harassment allegations, and that the applicant, unlike the 72-year-old co-accused with no criminal history, had kept the deceased without marrying her; the bail application was accordingly rejected.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30283

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 327 of 2025 Applicant :- Ghanshyam Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chif Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Singh,Kuldeep,Vivek Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Harish Chandra

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satyendra Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Harish Chandra, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 127 of 2024, under Sections 108 B.N.S., registered at Police Station Sadullanagar, District Balrampur.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 24.10.2024 against the applicant and his family members, stating that the applicant had enticed away the informant's daughter aged 21 years about a year ago and he was keeping her at his home without marrying her. After sometime, all the accused persons started harassing her, due to this reason, the informant's daughter committed suicide by hanging at about 4 PM on 21.10.2024

¶9

Although, the inquest report mentions that no injury was seen besides a literature mark around the neck, the post mortem examination report mentions a ligature mark around the neck, a contusion of size 5cm X 3cm on left side of face, a contusion of size 12cm X 5cm on right lower chest, a contusion of size 5cm X 1cm on right anterior thigh, a contusion of size 4cm X 1cm on right medial thigh and the cause of death has been opined to be Asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging.

¶10

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶11

The deceased's father and mother stated that the applicant was keeping their daughter without marrying her, she was pressurizing the applicant to marry her. The accused persons used to harass her, due to which she committed suicide.

¶12

Some independent witnesses have stated that the deceased committed suicide because of ill treatment meted by the applicant and his father co accused Radhe Shyam.

¶13

After investigation, a charge sheet has been submitted on 29.11.2024 against the applicant and his father.

¶14

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant's father- Radhey Shyam Chauhan (co-accused), has already been granted bail by means of an order dated 16.12.2024 passed by acoordinate bench of this court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12949 of 2024.

¶15

A perusal of the bail order dated 16.12.2024 indicates that the numerous injuries mentioned in the postmortem report have not been taken note of while granting bail to co-accused Radhe Shyam. The statements of independent witnesses have also not been referred to in the order dated 16.12.2024. Amongst other things, the consideration that have weight with the applicant are that co-accused Radhe Shyam is an old person aged 72 years having no criminal history.

¶16

The applicant is not an old person, he was keeping the deceased with him without marrying her; post mortem examination report mentions numerous ante mortem injuries suffered by the deceased which supports the allegation of harassment of the deceased by the accused persons which injuries remain unexplained by the applicant, I am of the view that the order dated 16.12.2020 granting bail to accused Radhey Shyam without taking into consideration these aspects of the matter, does not make out a grant for bail to the applicant on the ground of parity.

¶17

Without making any observations which may affect the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid facts do not warrant exercise of discretion of this Court in favour of the applicant by enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, this bail application stands rejected.

¶19

Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Preeti.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ghanshyam Chauhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chif Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyam Chauhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chif Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Vinay Kushwaha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Asif Naseem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Asif Naseem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kamlesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Dharmraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.