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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether bail should be granted to applicant Anil Beldar in Case Crime No. 253 of 2023 (Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Harpur Budhat, District Gorakhpur) during the pendency of trial.

Court's answer

Bail declined: taking into account that the deceased had expired within the precincts of the applicant's house, the absence of any evidence of alibi of the applicant, and that the deceased had expired within three years of her marriage, the Court did not find it a fit case for grant of bail.

Ratio / Principle

The bail application was found devoid of merits and rejected.

Key takeaways

Ancillary direction: the case pending before the trial court is to be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the Supreme Court decisions in Vinod Kumar (2015) 3 SCC 220 and Hussain (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.obiter¶13
Clarification: the observations in this order are limited to the facts brought by the parties regarding disposal of the bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.obiter¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.) rejected the bail application of Anil Beldar sought during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No. 253 of 2023 (Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act), Police Station Harpur Budhat, District Gorakhpur. Grounds for refusal: the deceased had expired within the precincts of the applicant's house, there was no evidence of alibi, and the death occurred within three years of her marriage. The observations were expressly confined to bail-stage submissions and stated to have no bearing on the merits at trial. The trial court was directed to decide the pending case expeditiously, in view of the principles laid down in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab (2015) 3 SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. Order dated 10.7.2025.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110526

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5510 of 2025

Applicant :- Anil Beldar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

List has been revised.

Heard Sri Rupesh Srivastava, holding brief of Sri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 253 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act Police Station Harpur Budhat, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed as there is no time of offence mentioned in it. It is next stated that the applicant had gone to Haryana and was doing job there. The cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. The applicant has no criminal history and he is cooperating in trial.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that the deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant within three years of her marriage, as such he is not entitled for bail.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the deceased had expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and there being no evidence of alibi of the applicant coupled by the fact that the deceased had expired within three years of her marriage, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

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

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements 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.

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.

Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Sumit S

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad