Allahabad High Court
Jogindar Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 5 May, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:71131 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14942 of 2025 Applicant :- Jogindar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ganesh Mani,Sugandha Yadav,Vinod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Ganesh Mani, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.
3. This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Jogindar Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 900 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Kotwali Padrauna, District Kushinagar.
4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 31.12.2024 by Vyas Yadav against the applicant and Arti Devi alleging therein that the marriage of his daughter Kiran Yadav aged about 24 years was solemnized in the year 2021 with Aman Yadav @ Golu Yadav. From the marriage they had a son and a girl aged about 3 years and 4 months respectively. On 31.12.2024 in the evening Monu Yadav had gone to the matrimonial house of his daughter where the applicant and Arti Devi the mother-in-law were present. As soon as he returned back from his house, Arti Devi from the mobile phone of Kiran Yadav called and told him that his daughter has died. On this information, the informant and other persons immediately rushed to her matrimonial house where they found the body of Kiran lying on the door and the accused had run away. The accused due to greed of dowry have murdered his daughter. FIR be lodged and action be taken.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased Kiran Yadav. It is submitted that the deceased committed suicide which is suggestive from the postmortem examination report wherein the doctor found a single ligature mark on her body and the cause of death was opined as cardio pulmonary arrest due to antemortem hanging. It is submitted that Smt. Nisha Yadav was interrogated who stated that the applicant is a cousin grandfather and she was playing with the children at the outside of the house wherein the deceased was also sitting after which she went inside and locked the door and when it was not opened she looked through hole it was seen that she committed suicide and the applicant has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant and co-accused. It is further submitted that co-accused Smt. Arti Devi has been granted by this Court vide order dated 20.03.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 8719 of 2025 (Arti Devi Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order is annexed as annexure 5 to the affidavit. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 22 of the affidavit and is in jail since 08.12.2024.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant and Smt. Arti Devi are named in the FIR. It is submitted that the husband of the deceased Aman Yadav @ Golu Yadav is not an accused in the matter. It is submitted that while deciding the bail application of Arti Devi the case of the applicant was distinguished and she was extending benefit of being a lady. It is submitted that in the house the applicant and Arti Devi were present where the deceased committed suicide. It is submitted that there are allegations against him. It is submitted that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.
7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR and there are allegations against the applicant and at the time of incident, the applicant was present in the house. The case of co-accused Arti Devi who has been granted bail by this Court is distinguishable with that of the applicant. Husband of the deceased is not an accused. I do not find it a fit case for bail.
8. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail at this stage.
9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 5.5.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)