Allahabad High Court
GULAB YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court allowed the bail application, granting bail to the accused subject to conditions.
Summary
Gulab Yadav applied for bail in a case involving alleged offences under sections 85, 89, 115(2), 352, 351(3) of the B.N.S. Act, sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act and section 67 of the I.T. Act. The applicant claimed innocence, arguing that the FIR was lodged 1.5 months after the alleged incident, that the injuries were self‑inflicted, and that there was no evidence of him inducing an abortion. He also highlighted the marital dispute between the parties and his clean criminal record. The State opposed bail, but the court, after considering the delay in filing the FIR and the lack of substantive evidence, found a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused despite the seriousness of the charges and the delay in filing the FIR.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. Act — s. 115(2), 351(3), 352, 85, 89
- D.P. Act — s. 3, 4
- I.T. Act — s. 67
Subjects
- bail
- delay in FIR
- false implication
- marital dispute
- criminal offences
- sureties
- court conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21723 of 2026
Gulab Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh, Ram Bhawan
Singh, Vinay Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.102 out of 185)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on
record.
2. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun
Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed
on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.89 of 2026, under Sections 85, 89,
115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., Section 3/4 D.P. Act and Section 67 of I.T. Act,
Police Station Mehnagar, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
FIR was delayed by about one and a half months, and there is no explanation
for the said delay. The injuries have been manufactured and may be self-
inflicted and are simple in nature. There is no evidence whatsoever of the
applicant having induced the abortion of the victim. The estranged husband-
wife dispute has been escalated into a criminal case by the victim. The
applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 15.04.2026. He
undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but the
submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be
disputed.
BAIL No. 21723 of 2026
2
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay in the institution of the FIR, and without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view
that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is
allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Gulab
Yadav, be released on bail in the
aforementioned case crime on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to
the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties,
with the conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate
witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.
8. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 8, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…