Dismissed¶13

Gaurav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2025BAIL/5040/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court bail rejection; Justice Krishan Pahal; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 5040 of 2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:110593; Gaurav v. State of U.P.; Case Crime No. 292 of 2024; Police Station Sirauli, District Bareilly; Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S.; Sections 3/4 D.P. Act; death within precincts of accused's house; prompt FIR; FIR delay of about twelve hours; asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging; no criminal antecedent; custody since 13.9.2024; expeditious trial direction; Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220; Hussain and Another v. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702; order date 10.7.2025.

What did the court decide?

Taking into consideration that the deceased had expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and that the FIR was instituted promptly, the court did not find it a fit case for grant of bail.

Gaurav vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Gaurav should be granted bail in Case Crime No. 292 of 2024 under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sirauli, District Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Court's answer

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The bail application was held devoid of merits and rejected.

¶13

Key takeaways

Operative direction: the case pending before the trial court is to be decided expeditiously, in view of the principles laid down in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain v. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.obiter¶14
Observations are limited to the facts pertaining to disposal of the bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.obiter¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail rejected — High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Krishan Pahal, J.), order dated 10.7.2025 in CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 5040 of 2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:110593): Gaurav's bail application in Case Crime No. 292 of 2024, Police Station Sirauli, District Bareilly, under Sections 80(2) and 85 B.N.S. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, rejected as devoid of merits. Deciding factors: the deceased had expired within the precincts of the applicant's house and the FIR was instituted promptly. Submissions of innocence, twelve-hour FIR delay, post-mortem cause of death (asphyxia due to antemortem hanging), absence of criminal antecedents and custody since 13.9.2024 did not prevail against the State's opposition. Trial court directed to decide the case expeditiously in view of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain v. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment; observations confined to bail disposal with no bearing on trial merits.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110593

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5040 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Gaurav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 292 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Sirauli, District- Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

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 twelve hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated the allegations are per se false. The cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.9.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶12

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant coupled with the fact that the FIR has been instituted promptly, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶13

The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected .

¶14

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702 , if there is no legal impediment.

¶15

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.

¶16

Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Vikas

¶17

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶18

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

Gaurav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav v. State of U.P.

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

Sikandra vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shailendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kamal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vinod Kumar vs State of U.P.

Shubham Alias Tiger Tiwari vs State of U.P.

Alphaj vs State of U.P. and 3 Others