Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:123782 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24567 of 2025 Applicant :- Arvind Yadav Alias Chintoo Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwani Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ashwani Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.3 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Jamalpur, District- Mirzapur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 22.2.2023, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the victim to cruelty for demand of Rs.2 lakh and Apache motorcycle as dowry, thereby leading her to death on 6.1.2025. 5. 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. The FIR is delayed by about four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the informant and all the family members were present at the time of inquest proceedings, but they have not whispered a single word against the applicant at that stage. The inquest proceedings were complete on 7.1.2025 and the FIR was instituted on 10.1.2025 as an afterthought after legal consultation. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.1.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the informant had given an application at the police station stating that his daughter has been put to death by her in-laws, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail as the deceased had committed suicide within the precincts of his house. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the cause of death being asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging and the family members of the deceased being present at the stage of inquest proceedings and the FIR being delayed by four days, 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. 10. Let the applicant- Arvind Yadav Alias Chintoo 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. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. 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. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad