High Court

4. The first bail application filed by the accused- appellant/ applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.11.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant has submitted that the averments made in the first information report are false and fabricated. He has also submitted that the accused-appellant/ applicant is innocent, who has been falsely implicated because of the fact that the he happens to be husband of the deceased.

6. His further submission is that there are vague and general allegations of demand of dowry and treating the deceased with cruelty due to non- fulfillment of demand of dowry against the appellant/ applicant.

7. His next submission is that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia and shock as a result of ante-mortem extensive burn injuries. However, no other external or internal injury was found on the body of the deceased. He has also submitted that there was no dying declaration of the deceased.

8. His further submission is that according to prosecution story, it is alleged that the accused persons including the present accused-appellant/ applicant set the deceased ablaze by sprinkling kerosene oil on her body. However, similarly placed co-accused, Madhu Dixit, who is mother-in- law of the deceased and who was also named in the first information report, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated

11.11.2024.

9. His next submission is that the accused/ applicant is languishing in jail since 29.03.2024, who has no previous criminal history. He has also submitted that the accused-appellant/ applicant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to him during trial.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant has concluded his submission by submitting that, in case, the accused-appellant/ applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall also cooperate with this Court in getting the present criminal appeal concluded expeditiously.

11. Learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the accused-appellant/ applicant by submitting that the accused-appellant/ applicant is named in the first information report, who has committed a heinous offence. Therefore, the accused-appellant/ applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant including the fact that similarly placed co-accused, Madhu Dixit, who is mother-in-law of the deceased and was also named in the first information report, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated

11.11.2024.

12. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, it transpires that the accused-appellant/ applicant, who is the husband of the deceased, was named in the first information report. There are vague and general allegations of demand of dowry against the appellant/ applicant and treating the deceased with cruelty due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. The cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia and shock as a result of ante-mortem extensive burn injuries. However, no other external or internal injury was found on the body of the deceased. There was no dying declaration of the deceased. Similarly placed co-accused, Madhu Dixit, who is mother-in-law of the deceased and who was also named in the first information report, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.11.2024. The accused/ applicant is languishing in jail since 29.03.2024, who has no previous criminal history. The accused-appellant/ applicant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to him during trial. There is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in the near future as the paper book in this case is not ready. Therefore, the accused- appellant/ applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

13. Thus, having regard to overall facts and circumstances of this case and also keeping in view the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, a case for bail is made out. The second bail application is, thus, allowed.

14. Let the applicant/ appellant, Rahul Dixit be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

15. As soon as personal bond and sureties are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by the trial court concerned to be kept on record of this appeal.

16. It is made clear that during bail, the accused- appellant/ applicant shall not indulge himself in any criminal activity. If he is found to have indulged in any criminal activity, the prosecution will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

17. Half of the fine imposed by the learned Trial Court shall remain stayed, but, the remaining half shall be deposited by the appellant/ applicant within a period of one month from the date of his release, failing which, the bail granted to the appellant/ applicant shall stand cancelled and he shall be arrested and sent to jail to serve out the sentence.

18. Office is directed to prepare the typed paper book in this case and provide a copy of the same to learned counsel for the parties as per rules of the Court.

19. List the appeal accordingly. (Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.) Order Date :- 23.4.2025 cks/-

4. The first bail application filed by the accused- appellant/ applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.11.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant has submitted that the averments made in the first information report are false and fabricated. He has also submitted that the accused-appellant/ applicant is innocent, who has been falsely implicated because of the fact that the he happens to be husband of the deceased.

6. His further submission is that there are vague and general allegations of demand of dowry and treating the deceased with cruelty due to non- fulfillment of demand of dowry against the appellant/ applicant.

7. His next submission is that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia and shock as a result of ante-mortem extensive burn injuries. However, no other external or internal injury was found on the body of the deceased. He has also submitted that there was no dying declaration of the deceased.

8. His further submission is that according to prosecution story, it is alleged that the accused persons including the present accused-appellant/ applicant set the deceased ablaze by sprinkling kerosene oil on her body. However, similarly placed co-accused, Madhu Dixit, who is mother-in- law of the deceased and who was also named in the first information report, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated

11.11.2024.

9. His next submission is that the accused/ applicant is languishing in jail since 29.03.2024, who has no previous criminal history. He has also submitted that the accused-appellant/ applicant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to him during trial.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant has concluded his submission by submitting that, in case, the accused-appellant/ applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall also cooperate with this Court in getting the present criminal appeal concluded expeditiously.

11. Learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the accused-appellant/ applicant by submitting that the accused-appellant/ applicant is named in the first information report, who has committed a heinous offence. Therefore, the accused-appellant/ applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant including the fact that similarly placed co-accused, Madhu Dixit, who is mother-in-law of the deceased and was also named in the first information report, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated

11.11.2024.

12. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, it transpires that the accused-appellant/ applicant, who is the husband of the deceased, was named in the first information report. There are vague and general allegations of demand of dowry against the appellant/ applicant and treating the deceased with cruelty due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. The cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia and shock as a result of ante-mortem extensive burn injuries. However, no other external or internal injury was found on the body of the deceased. There was no dying declaration of the deceased. Similarly placed co-accused, Madhu Dixit, who is mother-in-law of the deceased and who was also named in the first information report, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.11.2024. The accused/ applicant is languishing in jail since 29.03.2024, who has no previous criminal history. The accused-appellant/ applicant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to him during trial. There is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in the near future as the paper book in this case is not ready. Therefore, the accused- appellant/ applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

13. Thus, having regard to overall facts and circumstances of this case and also keeping in view the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, a case for bail is made out. The second bail application is, thus, allowed.

14. Let the applicant/ appellant, Rahul Dixit be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

15. As soon as personal bond and sureties are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by the trial court concerned to be kept on record of this appeal.

16. It is made clear that during bail, the accused- appellant/ applicant shall not indulge himself in any criminal activity. If he is found to have indulged in any criminal activity, the prosecution will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

17. Half of the fine imposed by the learned Trial Court shall remain stayed, but, the remaining half shall be deposited by the appellant/ applicant within a period of one month from the date of his release, failing which, the bail granted to the appellant/ applicant shall stand cancelled and he shall be arrested and sent to jail to serve out the sentence.

18. Office is directed to prepare the typed paper book in this case and provide a copy of the same to learned counsel for the parties as per rules of the Court.

19. List the appeal accordingly. (Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.) Order Date :- 23.4.2025 cks/-