Allahabad High Court

RAHUL YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The court held that the combination of the death occurring in the accused’s residence, the prompt filing of the FIR, and the presumption of guilt under Section 117 of the Evidence Act does not merit the grant of bail, and therefore bail was denied.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court heard a second bail application filed by Rahul Yadav, accused under Sections 80(2) and 85 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the same Act in a dowry‑death case (Crime No. 291 of 2024). The applicant contended that he was innocent, had been incarcerated for over a year and a half, that no dowry demand was proved, and that he had no criminal antecedent. The State opposed bail, invoking the presumption of guilt under Section 117 of the Indian Evidence Act and the corroboration of prosecution witnesses. The Court observed that the deceased died within the applicant’s house, the FIR was lodged promptly, and the marriage had lasted only seven years, concluding that these facts did not justify bail. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed, with the Court directing that the trial proceed expeditiously in line with Supreme Court precedents.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted to an accused in a dowry‑death case under Sections 80(2) and 85 of the Dowry Prohibition Act given the circumstances of the case.
Whether the presumption of guilt under Section 117 of the Indian Evidence Act bars the grant of bail.
Whether the length of pre‑trial incarceration and alleged lack of dowry demand affect the bail eligibility.

Legislation cited

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1986 — s. 3, 4, 80(2), 85
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 117

Subjects

bail
dowry death
Section 80(2) BNS
Section 85 Dowry Prohibition Act
Section 117 Evidence Act
pre‑trial detention
presumption of guilt

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15284 of 2026

Rahul Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lalit Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.31 out of 259)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Lalit Singh, learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri Jai
Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the
material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime
No.291 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85 BNS and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition
Act, Police Station- Muhammadabad, District Ghazipur with the prayer to
enlarge him on bail.

4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail
application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.7.2025 in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4547 of 2025 and the following order
was passed:-

"1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Kalp Dev Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit
Kumar, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on
record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 291 of 2024, under Sections
80(2), 85 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Muhammadabad,
District- Ghazipur, during the pendency of trial.
BAIL No. 15284 of 2026
2

4. 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 and there
is no explanation of the said delay caused.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated the allegations are
per se false. The cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result
of antemortem hanging. No injury has been found on the body of the
deceased person except a ligature mark on her neck. There is no criminal
antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since
16.10.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant
is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail
application.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration that the deceased had expired within the precincts of house
of the applicant coupled with the fact that the FIR has been instituted
promptly within a span of 2 hours and 20 minutes, I do not find it a fit
case for grant of bail to the applicant.

8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly,
rejected.

9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid
down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod
Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another
vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

10. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the
facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail
application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits
of the case during trial."

5. As a new ground, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that it is the
period of incarceration as the applicant is languishing in jail since
16.10.2024, as such, he is incarcerated in jail for more than one and a half
BAIL No. 15284 of 2026
3

years. Only three witnesses have been examined to date. It has come up in
the cross-examination of PW-2 that there was no demand any dowry, as
such, the ingredients of Section 80(2) BNS do not stand fulfilled. There is no
criminal antecedent of the applicant and he is ready to cooperate with trial.
In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of
bail.

6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail
application on the ground that the presumption U/s 117 of Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam goes against the applicant as other witnesses have
completely corroborated the prosecution story, as such, he is not entitled to
bail.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the fact that applicant being the husband of the deceased and she having
expired within the precincts of his house that too within a span of seven
years of the marriage, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the
applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly,
rejected.

8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously, as early as possible, in accordance with law,
without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party, if there is no legal
impediment.

9. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Vikas Verma

Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…