Allahabad High Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant and Sri S.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondent on the bail application in pending appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant has filed supplementary affidavit, the same is taken on record.

3. This is the first bail application of the present appellant/ applicant- Ashok Kumar in Sessions Trial No.59 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No.117 of 2013, Police Station- Sangramgarh, District- Pratapgarh wherein the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for rigorous life imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, six months' additional simple imprisonment.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant has stated that the present appellant/ applicant remained on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty of bail, though during the trial, he remained in judicial custody/jail for a period of approximately two and half years and after conviction order dated 27.11.2024, he has been sent to the jail and more than one year's period has again passed since he is in jail. Therefore, total period of incarceration is three and half years. Learned counsel has explained the criminal history of the present appellant/ applicant and 2 CRLA No. 4095 of 2024 criminal history of Case Crime No.174 of 2017, under Sections 148, 149, 147, 323, 504, 332, 336 & 353 IPC, Police Station- Sangramgarh, District- Pratapgarh has again been explained in the supplementary affidavit vide para-3 to indicate that the appellant/ applicant has not received any summon from the court in the aforesaid crime case. The bail order granted by this Court during trial has been enclosed with the supplementary affidavit as Annexure No.SA-1.

5. So far as the merit of the bail application is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant has submitted that learned Trial Court has considered one relevant aspect that at the time of death of the deceased, the present appellant/ applicant, who is husband of the deceased, was not present in the house but he has been convicted mainly for the reason that the deceased died under mysterious circumstances in the house of her in- law after three years of her marriage. Learned counsel has further submitted that the inconsistency in the prosecution story has not been considered properly by the learned Trial Court and on the basis of perverse findings, the present appellant/ applicant has been convicted taking aid of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. Basically, the conviction order is based on circumstantial evidences but the chain of circumstantial evidences is not properly connected. He has submitted that from the perusal of the inquest report, it appears that kerosene oil was found near the dead body, but when the body of the deceased was subjected to post-mortem, no smell of kerosene oil was found present. He has further submitted that in fact, the clothes of the deceased caught fire on account of short circuit in the electric wiring. The relation of the present appellant/ applicant with his wife was cordial and he was having no motive or intention to kill her. He has further submitted that the FIR was lodged under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act but the appellant/ applicant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC. If no punishment under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC has been awarded to the appellant/ applicant and he has been convicted under Section 302 IPC, then burden was upon the prosecution to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts and if chain of circumstantial evidences is not intact strictly in terms of settled proposition of law in Sharad Birdhichand Sharda Vs State of 3 CRLA No. 4095 of 2024 Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, the appellant/ applicant could have not been convicted only for the reason that he could not discharge the burden to explain the mysterious death of his wife. Further submission is that there is no eye witness account or last seen evidence. Paper-book is not ready and learned counsel has stated that as and when the paper-book is prepared and the case is listed for final hearing of the appeal after providing the paper-book to all concerning parties, he will argue the appeal on merits and shall not take any unnecessary adjournment. Further, if the appellant/ applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Though all the aforesaid arguments of learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant may be tested during the course of the final hearing of the appeal inasmuch as the aforesaid arguments have been considered only for the purposes of bail.

7. Per contra, Sri S.P. Singh, learned AGA, has vehemently opposed the bail application by submitting that chain of circumstantial evidences is intact and the present appellant/ applicant after murdering his wife created a story as if it was an accident. He has further submitted that the medical evidences are clearly suggesting that the deceased died on account of ante-mortem injuries and smothering. The medical evidence further reads that the deceased has not died on account of any burning and the story so created by the appellant/ applicant that the clothes of the deceased caught fire on account of short circuit in the electric wiring is absolutely false and misconceived. He has further submitted that the aforesaid appeal may be heard finally after preparation of the paper-book.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, without entering into merits of the appeal; considering the fact that the present appellant/ applicant remained on bail during trial; he did not misuse the liberty of bail; at the time of death of his wife, the appellant/ applicant was not present in the house; there is no eye witness account or last seen evidence; paper-book is not ready and undertaking of learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant that he shall argue the appeal on merits as and when the same is listed for final hearing after preparation of the paper-book, we find it appropriate to release the 4 CRLA No. 4095 of 2024 appellant/ applicant on bail.

9. Accordingly, the bail application is disposed of.

10. Let appellant/ applicant- Ashok Kumar convict of the aforesaid sessions trial 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.

11. 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.

12. It is further made clear that during bail, if the appellant/ applicant commits any offence, the prosecution will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

13. Out of total fine imposed by the learned Trial Court, 50% fine shall be deposited by the appellant/ applicant within a period of four weeks from the date of release and rest 50% fine shall remain stayed. If 50% fine is not deposited within the aforesaid stipulated time, the bail granted to the appellant/ applicant shall stand cancelled and he shall be arrested and sent to jail to serve out the sentence. (Order on Criminal Appeal)

14. Office is directed to prepare the paper-book at the earliest and copy thereof be provided to the all concerning parties, as per Rules.

15. List the appeal in the week commencing 2nd February, 2026. (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) December 11, 2025 RBS/-

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant and Sri S.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondent on the bail application in pending appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant has filed supplementary affidavit, the same is taken on record.

3. This is the first bail application of the present appellant/ applicant- Ashok Kumar in Sessions Trial No.59 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No.117 of 2013, Police Station- Sangramgarh, District- Pratapgarh wherein the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for rigorous life imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, six months' additional simple imprisonment.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant has stated that the present appellant/ applicant remained on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty of bail, though during the trial, he remained in judicial custody/jail for a period of approximately two and half years and after conviction order dated 27.11.2024, he has been sent to the jail and more than one year's period has again passed since he is in jail. Therefore, total period of incarceration is three and half years. Learned counsel has explained the criminal history of the present appellant/ applicant and 2 CRLA No. 4095 of 2024 criminal history of Case Crime No.174 of 2017, under Sections 148, 149, 147, 323, 504, 332, 336 & 353 IPC, Police Station- Sangramgarh, District- Pratapgarh has again been explained in the supplementary affidavit vide para-3 to indicate that the appellant/ applicant has not received any summon from the court in the aforesaid crime case. The bail order granted by this Court during trial has been enclosed with the supplementary affidavit as Annexure No.SA-1.

5. So far as the merit of the bail application is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant has submitted that learned Trial Court has considered one relevant aspect that at the time of death of the deceased, the present appellant/ applicant, who is husband of the deceased, was not present in the house but he has been convicted mainly for the reason that the deceased died under mysterious circumstances in the house of her in- law after three years of her marriage. Learned counsel has further submitted that the inconsistency in the prosecution story has not been considered properly by the learned Trial Court and on the basis of perverse findings, the present appellant/ applicant has been convicted taking aid of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. Basically, the conviction order is based on circumstantial evidences but the chain of circumstantial evidences is not properly connected. He has submitted that from the perusal of the inquest report, it appears that kerosene oil was found near the dead body, but when the body of the deceased was subjected to post-mortem, no smell of kerosene oil was found present. He has further submitted that in fact, the clothes of the deceased caught fire on account of short circuit in the electric wiring. The relation of the present appellant/ applicant with his wife was cordial and he was having no motive or intention to kill her. He has further submitted that the FIR was lodged under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act but the appellant/ applicant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC. If no punishment under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC has been awarded to the appellant/ applicant and he has been convicted under Section 302 IPC, then burden was upon the prosecution to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts and if chain of circumstantial evidences is not intact strictly in terms of settled proposition of law in Sharad Birdhichand Sharda Vs State of 3 CRLA No. 4095 of 2024 Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, the appellant/ applicant could have not been convicted only for the reason that he could not discharge the burden to explain the mysterious death of his wife. Further submission is that there is no eye witness account or last seen evidence. Paper-book is not ready and learned counsel has stated that as and when the paper-book is prepared and the case is listed for final hearing of the appeal after providing the paper-book to all concerning parties, he will argue the appeal on merits and shall not take any unnecessary adjournment. Further, if the appellant/ applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Though all the aforesaid arguments of learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant may be tested during the course of the final hearing of the appeal inasmuch as the aforesaid arguments have been considered only for the purposes of bail.

7. Per contra, Sri S.P. Singh, learned AGA, has vehemently opposed the bail application by submitting that chain of circumstantial evidences is intact and the present appellant/ applicant after murdering his wife created a story as if it was an accident. He has further submitted that the medical evidences are clearly suggesting that the deceased died on account of ante-mortem injuries and smothering. The medical evidence further reads that the deceased has not died on account of any burning and the story so created by the appellant/ applicant that the clothes of the deceased caught fire on account of short circuit in the electric wiring is absolutely false and misconceived. He has further submitted that the aforesaid appeal may be heard finally after preparation of the paper-book.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, without entering into merits of the appeal; considering the fact that the present appellant/ applicant remained on bail during trial; he did not misuse the liberty of bail; at the time of death of his wife, the appellant/ applicant was not present in the house; there is no eye witness account or last seen evidence; paper-book is not ready and undertaking of learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant that he shall argue the appeal on merits as and when the same is listed for final hearing after preparation of the paper-book, we find it appropriate to release the 4 CRLA No. 4095 of 2024 appellant/ applicant on bail.

9. Accordingly, the bail application is disposed of.

10. Let appellant/ applicant- Ashok Kumar convict of the aforesaid sessions trial 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.

11. 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.

12. It is further made clear that during bail, if the appellant/ applicant commits any offence, the prosecution will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

13. Out of total fine imposed by the learned Trial Court, 50% fine shall be deposited by the appellant/ applicant within a period of four weeks from the date of release and rest 50% fine shall remain stayed. If 50% fine is not deposited within the aforesaid stipulated time, the bail granted to the appellant/ applicant shall stand cancelled and he shall be arrested and sent to jail to serve out the sentence. (Order on Criminal Appeal)

14. Office is directed to prepare the paper-book at the earliest and copy thereof be provided to the all concerning parties, as per Rules.

15. List the appeal in the week commencing 2nd February, 2026. (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) December 11, 2025 RBS/-