Rajdev Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48516

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7615 of 2025

Applicant :- Rajdev Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Salik Ram Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and as well as Shri Madhulika Yadav, learned Advocate who has filed a vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant which is taken on record.

¶7

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the daughter of the informant, who was married to the son of the applicant, was murdered by her in-laws and thereafter hanged on 11.03.2025.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations in the prosecution case, as well as in the complainant’s statement, are general in nature. The FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of 12 days, and no specific role has been attributed to the applicant.

¶9

It is further submitted that co-accused Srimati, who was assigned a similar role, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 10.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6002 of 2025. The applicant, therefore, seeks parity with the said order.

¶10

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.03.2025 without having any criminal antecedent. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application.

¶12

Perused the record.

¶13

Perusal of the post-mortem report shows no antemortem injury on the victim’s body except for a ligature mark. The FIR is delayed by 12 days, and no specific allegation has been made against the applicant. Prima facie, there is also no material to suggest that soon before her death, the victim was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry.

¶14

On due consideration to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as well as the bail granted to co-accused Srimati (mother-in-law of the deceased), and the fact that the applicant being the fatherin-law of the deceased, who is in custody since 28.03.2025 without any criminal antecedents, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant on the ground of parity.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶16

Let the applicant Rajdev Yadav involved in FIR No. Case Crime No.- 71/2025, Under Section-80(2)/85 BNS & 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station- Kurebhar, District - Sultanpur be released on bail on his 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:-

¶17

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the

¶20

evidence.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶22

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶23

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

¶24

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present anticipatory bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. Order Date :- 19.8.2025

¶25

R.C.

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajdev Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajdev Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

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

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

Maynoor @ Sharukh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Anand Singh @ Chunna Vs State of U.P. through Secretary, Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lucknow

Ashutosh Shukla @ Satyam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.