Ramkesh Yadav vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37976 of 2025

Ramkesh Yadav

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) :	Prem Narayan Singh, Ram Bahadur, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s):	G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 66

¶6

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶7

List revised.

¶8

Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ram Bahadur, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Triveni Sharan Rai, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶9

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Ramkesh Yadav , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 125 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued as follows:-

¶11

(i) The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶12

(ii) The applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased Smt. Shalini.

¶13

(iii) The marriage of the deceased Shalini was solemnized with Shivam Yadav the son of the applicant on 29.01.2020.

¶14

(iv) General and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant.

¶15

(v) The deceased committed suicide which is suggestive from the postmortem examination report, wherein, the deceased has received

¶16

BAIL No. 37976 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

a single ligature mark on her body and the cause of death has been opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.

¶19

(vi) Shivam Yadav the husband of the deceased is in jail.

¶20

(vii) The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 06 and is in jail since 28.04.2025.

¶21

(viii) Co-accused Smt. Neelam Devi the mother-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30997 of 2025, the copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-7 to the affidavit.

¶22

Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶23

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. The husband of the deceased is in jail. Co-accused Smt. Neelam Devi the mother-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail.

¶24

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶25

Let the applicant- Ramkesh 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶26

(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶27

(ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶28

BAIL No. 37976 of 2025

¶29

3

¶30

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she/he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶31

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her/him presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her/him, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS, 2023.

¶32

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her/him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against her/him under Section 269 BNS, 2023.

¶33

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶34

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶35

The bail application is allowed .

¶36

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶37

October 31, 2025 AS Rathore

¶38

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶39

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramkesh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkesh 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

Similar cases

Joginder Yadav vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Rajbhar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Jasoda vs State of U.P.

Ashish Kumar Singh vs State of U.P.

Shashi Kapoor vs State of U.P.

Sansari vs State of U.P.