GHANSHYAM CHAUHAN v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ITS ADDL. CHIF SECY. DEPTT. OF HOME LKO
BAIL/327/2025 · 2025-05-21
Subhash Vidyarthi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 115608 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 115608 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30283 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 327 of 2025 Applicant :- Ghanshyam Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chif Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Singh,Kuldeep,Vivek Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Harish Chandra Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satyendra Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Harish Chandra, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 127 of 2024, under Sections 108 B.N.S., registered at Police Station Sadullanagar, District Balrampur. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 24.10.2024 against the applicant and his family members, stating that the applicant had enticed away the informant's daughter aged 21 years about a year ago and he was keeping her at his home without marrying her. After sometime, all the accused persons started harassing her, due to this reason, the informant's daughter committed suicide by hanging at about 4 PM on 21.10.2024
4. Although, the inquest report mentions that no injury was seen besides a literature mark around the neck, the post mortem examination report mentions a ligature mark around the neck, a contusion of size 5cm X 3cm on left side of face, a contusion of size 12cm X 5cm on right lower chest, a contusion of size 5cm X 1cm on right anterior thigh, a contusion of size 4cm X 1cm on right medial thigh and the cause of death has been opined to be Asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history. 6. The deceased's father and mother stated that the applicant was keeping their daughter without marrying her, she was pressurizing the applicant to marry her. The accused persons used to harass her, due to which she committed suicide. 7. Some independent witnesses have stated that the deceased committed suicide because of ill treatment meted by the applicant and his father co accused Radhe Shyam. 8.
After investigation, a charge sheet has been submitted on 29.11.2024 against the applicant and his father. 9. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant's father- Radhey Shyam Chauhan (co-accused), has already been granted bail by means of an order dated 16.12.2024 passed by acoordinate bench of this court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12949 of 2024. 10. A perusal of the bail order dated 16.12.2024 indicates that the numerous injuries mentioned in the postmortem report have not been taken note of while granting bail to co-accused Radhe Shyam. The statements of independent witnesses have also not been referred to in the order dated 16.12.2024. Amongst other things, the consideration that have weight with the applicant are that co-accused Radhe Shyam is an old person aged 72 years having no criminal history. 11. The applicant is not an old person, he was keeping the deceased with him without marrying her; post mortem examination report mentions numerous ante mortem injuries suffered by the deceased which supports the allegation of harassment of the deceased by the accused persons which injuries remain unexplained by the applicant, I am of the view that the order dated 16.12.2020 granting bail to accused Radhey Shyam without taking into consideration these aspects of the matter, does not make out a grant for bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 12. Without making any observations which may affect the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid facts do not warrant exercise of discretion of this Court in favour of the applicant by enlarging the applicant on bail. 13. Accordingly, this bail application stands rejected. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Preeti. Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench