Allahabad High Court
SHIVBABU YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The bail application was dismissed as no case for grant of bail was made out.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Shivbabu Yadav, who is charged with murder of his wife under Section 103(1) BNS. The applicant claimed innocence, pointing to discrepancies between the inquest report (death by falling on a motor starter) and the post‑mortem report (asphyxia due to strangulation), and argued that the hyoid bone was intact. The State opposed bail, highlighting that the rope used for strangulation was recovered from the applicant's house and that the applicant had not satisfactorily explained his wife's death. The Court, after weighing the nature of the allegations and the evidentiary material, concluded that no case for bail existed and dismissed the application. However, the Court directed the trial court to expedite the trial within one year and permitted a fresh bail application if the trial is not concluded within that period.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Section 483 BNS in a murder case pending trial.
- Whether the discrepancies between the inquest and post‑mortem reports and the recovery of the alleged weapon justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 483
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- inquest
- post‑mortem discrepancy
- rope as weapon
- hyoid bone
- pendency of trial
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45683 of 2024
Shivbabu Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jayant Srivastava, Yogesh Kumar
Singh, Digvijay Singh, Mohd. Abrar
Khan, Shashi Kant Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): Dileep Kumar, G.A., Sanraj Yadav,
Satyendra Singh
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Mohd. Abrar Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri B.P. Singh, learned AGA appearing for the State respondents.
2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of
applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.
322 of 2024, under Section 103(1) BNS, registered at Police
Station Sarai Akil, District Kaushambi, during pendency of the trial.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that
applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this
case and he has been languishing in jail since 10.8.2024. It is
further submitted that the applicant has been assigned the role of
committing of murder of his wife, however, the applicant is said to
have informed the first informant as he was present during inquest
and post-mortem of the deceased. It is further submitted that there
are discrepancies in the inquest and post-mortem as in the inquest
report, cause of death death has been found, in the opinion of the
witnesses, to be that of falling on starter of motor whereas in the
post-mortem the cause of death has been found to be asphyxia
due to strangulation. It is further submitted that the applicant has
been languishing in jail for the last two years and only four
BAIL No. 45683 of 2024
2
witnesses have examined till date. Learned counsel for the
applicant has referred to the statement of doctor in which the
doctor has stated that hyoid bone of the deceased was found to be
intact and cause of death could have resulted from falling on the
ground or by suffering friction of surface. It is also submitted that
the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if
granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy
pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early
conclusion of trial.
4. On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for
grant of bail and it is submitted that it is submitted that deceased
has died in the house of the applicant and it is the duty of the
applicant to explain the cause of death of his wife and the applicant
has not explained the same and he has informed the first informant
that deceased died due to some unknown reason which raises
doubt on his conduct. It is further submitted that hyoid bone does
not get fractured in all cases of strangulation. It is further submitted
that weapon of the offence (rope) by which the deceased has been
strangulated has been recovered from the possession of the
applicant and starter of motor has not been found in the site plan
prepared by the I.O.
5. The deceased is the wife of the applicant who has died in the
house of the applicant and the applicant is said to have informed
the first informant that the deceased died due to some unknown
reason. There appears to some discrepancies in the inquest report
and the post-mortem report, however, the same is fit to be
appreciated during trial and the cause of death has been found by
the doctor to be asphyxia due to strangulation and the weapon of
the offence (rope) has been recovered from the house of the
applicant.
6. Considering the nature of the allegations levelled against the
applicant and other attending facts and circumstances of the case
and without expressing any opinion on its merit, no case for grant
of bail is made out.
BAIL No. 45683 of 2024
3
7. Present application is accordingly dismissed.
8. However, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial
of the case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period
of one year. In case, the trial is not concluded within the stipulated
time, the applicant shall be at liberty to approach this Court again
from grant of bail.
May 5, 2026
Abhishek
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…