Nanhak Chand Yadav vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36734

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8626 of 2025

Applicant :- Nanhak Chand Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pratibha Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Ms. Pratibha Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 113 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2), 238 of BNS and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Kon, District - Sonbhadra, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have subjected the victim to cruelty for a demand of dowry thereby leading to her death on 17.10.2024.

¶10

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 as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶11

Learned counsel has also stated that the cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. There is no mentioning in the FIR as to what demand was made as dowry. There is nothing on record to suggest that the demand of dowry has been made soon before her death, as such, the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are not fulfilled.

¶12

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

¶13

There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.10.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶15

In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant- Nanhak Chand Yadav , who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶19

(ii) 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 313 Cr.P.C./ 351BNSS 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 him in accordance with law.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

Order Date:- 12.3.2025 Siddhant

¶23

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶24

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

Nanhak Chand Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanhak Chand 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

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