Sarvesh Saini State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko v. Reserved on

criminal antecedents. He is the husband of the deceased. FIR was lodged against five persons. Police investigated the matter and charge sheet was filed only against the husband. As regards the other named accused persons, the prosecution case was found false by the investigating officer. The mobile number mentioned in the FIR belongs to the applicant and was within the knowledge of the complainant, yet he deliberately avoided naming the applicant who had informed him about the unfortunate incident.

5. He further submits that the incident occurred after 6 years and 9 months of the marriage. There was a delay of 24 hours in lodging the FIR. There was no prior complaint, either oral or documentary, regarding any cruelty inflicted upon the deceased for dowry. The deceased was living in a depressed state as she was unable to conceive and she was undergoing advanced treatment of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) under Dr. Anita Singh. About two days before the incident, the applicant deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with Dr. Anita Singh, and the receipt of which is on record. The statement of Dr. Anita Singh is also on record showing that the deceased had been receiving Vitro Fertilization (IVF) treatment for the last several years.

6. It has been further submitted that the applicant actively ensured treatment of the deceased for In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), which reflects his care and affection towards her. No evidence exists to suggest that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death. During the inquest, family members from both sides were present. The applicant took the deceased to the hospital to save her life. She was taken to KGMU, Lucknow immediately after the incident. The death memo records that the deceased was brought by the applicant. The complainant was informed by the applicant himself. At the time of the alleged incident, the applicant was at his shop and returned home during lunch, where he found the bedroom door locked from inside. When repeated calls to his wife went unanswered, he entered the room through the back window and found her lying in a pool of blood. He then opened the door, called the family members, and rushed the deceased to the hospital in an attempt to save her life.

7. It is also submitted that the applicant had no knowledge regarding the manner and mode of injury sustained by the deceased. The applicant had 3 BAIL No. 6541 of 2024 spent more than Rs. 8,00,000/- in the last five years for her IVF treatment, and thus the allegation of the complainant that the deceased was killed for non-fulfillment of a dowry demand of Rs. 4,00,000/- cannot be believed.

8. PW-1 has already been examined and the statement of PW-2 has also been recorded. Subsequently, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning two exonerated persons, due to which the trial is held up.

9. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

10. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the bail application, submitting that there are allegations of dowry demand of Rs. 4,00,000/- and ten antemortem injuries were found on the deceased’s body. She died due to shock and hemorrhage caused by the antemortem injuries. The deceased died within seven years of her marriage, under unnatural circumstances, inside the applicant’s house. The applicant was present in the premises since his shop was on the ground floor and the residence was on the first floor, where the incident occurred. It is further submitted that the burden lies on the applicant to explain how the deceased died.

11. Perused the record, along with the antemortem injuries suffered by the deceased.

12. In the postmortem report of the deceased Meenakshi, the following injuries were found:- "(I) Incised Wound 2 X 1 cm X bone deep present on right side of forehead, 2 cm above right eye brow; (ii) Incised Wound 2 X 1 cm X bone deep on right side of forehead 3 cm above right eye brow; (iii) Incised Wound 2 X 0.5 cm X bone deep on right side of forehead, 4 cm above right eye brow; (iv) Incised Wound 2 X 0.5 cm X bone deep present on angle of right eye: (v) Lacerated Wound 8 X 5 cm X bone deep present on top of head, 12 cm above root of nose; (vi) Multiple Incised Wound 8 X 7 cm X bone deep in area of front of neck just above supra sternal notch 15 in number, size varying from 2 X 1 cm to upto 1 X 0.5 cm; (vii) Multiple Incised Wound 4 X 3 cm X bone deep present in area of front of right wrist joint 5 in number, size varying from 2 X 1 cm to upto 1 X 0.5 cm; (viii) Multiple Incised Wound 15 X 6 cm in area of front of abdomen around umbilicus injuries are 4 BAIL No. 6541 of 2024 abdominal cavity deep 10 in number size varying from 2 X 1 cm upto 1 X 0.5 cm; (ix) Abraded Contusion 2 X 2 cm present on right leg; (x) Abraded Contusion 2 D 2 cm present on medial aspect of right toe."

13. It is undisputed that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within seven years of marriage inside the applicant’s residence. The applicant was present at the time of occurrence in his shop, situated within the same premises, and there are allegations of dowry demand. The statements of prosecution witnesses, as well as complainant, clearly allege that for non-fulfillment of an additional dowry demand of Rs. 4,00,000/-, the deceased was done to death by her in-laws.

14. Prima facie, no explanation has been given by the applicant regarding the multiple incised wounds sustained by the deceased, which led to her death. Out of ten antemortem injuries, seven were incised wounds. The parents of the deceased, in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., alleged that the applicant used to demand Rs. 4,00,000/- as dowry from the deceased, and she was murdered in connection with the said demand.

15. Considering the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, and the medical evidence showing the antemortem injuries, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

16. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is rejected. September 3, 2025 R.C. (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

criminal antecedents. He is the husband of the deceased. FIR was lodged against five persons. Police investigated the matter and charge sheet was filed only against the husband. As regards the other named accused persons, the prosecution case was found false by the investigating officer. The mobile number mentioned in the FIR belongs to the applicant and was within the knowledge of the complainant, yet he deliberately avoided naming the applicant who had informed him about the unfortunate incident.

5. He further submits that the incident occurred after 6 years and 9 months of the marriage. There was a delay of 24 hours in lodging the FIR. There was no prior complaint, either oral or documentary, regarding any cruelty inflicted upon the deceased for dowry. The deceased was living in a depressed state as she was unable to conceive and she was undergoing advanced treatment of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) under Dr. Anita Singh. About two days before the incident, the applicant deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with Dr. Anita Singh, and the receipt of which is on record. The statement of Dr. Anita Singh is also on record showing that the deceased had been receiving Vitro Fertilization (IVF) treatment for the last several years.

6. It has been further submitted that the applicant actively ensured treatment of the deceased for In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), which reflects his care and affection towards her. No evidence exists to suggest that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death. During the inquest, family members from both sides were present. The applicant took the deceased to the hospital to save her life. She was taken to KGMU, Lucknow immediately after the incident. The death memo records that the deceased was brought by the applicant. The complainant was informed by the applicant himself. At the time of the alleged incident, the applicant was at his shop and returned home during lunch, where he found the bedroom door locked from inside. When repeated calls to his wife went unanswered, he entered the room through the back window and found her lying in a pool of blood. He then opened the door, called the family members, and rushed the deceased to the hospital in an attempt to save her life.

7. It is also submitted that the applicant had no knowledge regarding the manner and mode of injury sustained by the deceased. The applicant had 3 BAIL No. 6541 of 2024 spent more than Rs. 8,00,000/- in the last five years for her IVF treatment, and thus the allegation of the complainant that the deceased was killed for non-fulfillment of a dowry demand of Rs. 4,00,000/- cannot be believed.

8. PW-1 has already been examined and the statement of PW-2 has also been recorded. Subsequently, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning two exonerated persons, due to which the trial is held up.

9. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

10. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the bail application, submitting that there are allegations of dowry demand of Rs. 4,00,000/- and ten antemortem injuries were found on the deceased’s body. She died due to shock and hemorrhage caused by the antemortem injuries. The deceased died within seven years of her marriage, under unnatural circumstances, inside the applicant’s house. The applicant was present in the premises since his shop was on the ground floor and the residence was on the first floor, where the incident occurred. It is further submitted that the burden lies on the applicant to explain how the deceased died.

11. Perused the record, along with the antemortem injuries suffered by the deceased.

12. In the postmortem report of the deceased Meenakshi, the following injuries were found:- "(I) Incised Wound 2 X 1 cm X bone deep present on right side of forehead, 2 cm above right eye brow; (ii) Incised Wound 2 X 1 cm X bone deep on right side of forehead 3 cm above right eye brow; (iii) Incised Wound 2 X 0.5 cm X bone deep on right side of forehead, 4 cm above right eye brow; (iv) Incised Wound 2 X 0.5 cm X bone deep present on angle of right eye: (v) Lacerated Wound 8 X 5 cm X bone deep present on top of head, 12 cm above root of nose; (vi) Multiple Incised Wound 8 X 7 cm X bone deep in area of front of neck just above supra sternal notch 15 in number, size varying from 2 X 1 cm to upto 1 X 0.5 cm; (vii) Multiple Incised Wound 4 X 3 cm X bone deep present in area of front of right wrist joint 5 in number, size varying from 2 X 1 cm to upto 1 X 0.5 cm; (viii) Multiple Incised Wound 15 X 6 cm in area of front of abdomen around umbilicus injuries are 4 BAIL No. 6541 of 2024 abdominal cavity deep 10 in number size varying from 2 X 1 cm upto 1 X 0.5 cm; (ix) Abraded Contusion 2 X 2 cm present on right leg; (x) Abraded Contusion 2 D 2 cm present on medial aspect of right toe."

13. It is undisputed that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within seven years of marriage inside the applicant’s residence. The applicant was present at the time of occurrence in his shop, situated within the same premises, and there are allegations of dowry demand. The statements of prosecution witnesses, as well as complainant, clearly allege that for non-fulfillment of an additional dowry demand of Rs. 4,00,000/-, the deceased was done to death by her in-laws.

14. Prima facie, no explanation has been given by the applicant regarding the multiple incised wounds sustained by the deceased, which led to her death. Out of ten antemortem injuries, seven were incised wounds. The parents of the deceased, in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., alleged that the applicant used to demand Rs. 4,00,000/- as dowry from the deceased, and she was murdered in connection with the said demand.

15. Considering the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, and the medical evidence showing the antemortem injuries, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

16. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is rejected. September 3, 2025 R.C. (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)