Ghure Lal Yadav vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110678

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5980 of 2025

Applicant :- Ghure Lal Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudarshan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 135 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Balua, District - Chandauli, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the sister of the informant as per Hindu Rites in the month of April, 2023. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for a demand of a car and money as dowry thereby leading her to death on 23.08.2024.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. There is no time of offence mentioned in the FIR although it was instituted the same day.

¶11

Learned counsel has also stated that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. The victim used to talk to her friend and when the applicant had scolded her to refrain from doing so, she has committed suicide due to anger. The cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging.

¶12

Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.08.2024, having no criminal history to

¶13

his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt and the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that the FIR is prompt coupled by the fact that the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

¶16

The bail application is, accordingly, rejected .

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date:- 10.7.2025 Siddhant

¶20

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ghure Lal Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghure Lal Yadav 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

Pappu Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anand Prajapati vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Buddha Alias Bodda vs State of U.P.

Vidit vs State of U.P.

Deepak vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rahul Yadav vs State of U.P.