High Court

1. Heard Sri Krishna Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, the learned A.G.A.-I.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0370 of 2024, under Sections 80, 85, 352 of B.N.S., Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow.

3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 09.08.2024 against the applicant, his mother and brother stating that the informant had got his daughter married to the applicant on 28.11.2023. All the accused persons used to harass her for demand of dowry. On a day before the incident the informant’s daughter had telephonically told the informant that in case he fails to fulfill their demand of dowry, she would be killed. On 02.08.2024, the informed received a phone call at 2.34 asking him to take away his daughter. The informant went to the applicant’s house, where the accused persons abused him. On making a phone call to the number from which he had received the call at 2.34 on 02.08.2024, the informant came to know that his daughter was admitted in Chandan Hospital, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, where the Doctors told that his daughter was dead.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail-application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent. He has no criminal history and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the allegations against the applicant’s brother Sanjay Gupta could not be established during investigation and a chargesheet was filed against the applicant and his mother Sarojini Agrahari. The applicant’s mother Sarojini Agrahari has already been granted bail by means of an order dated 17.10.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10922 of 2024.

6. Co-accused Sarojini Agrahari has been granted bail taking into consideration the treatment-card of the informant’s daughter, which mentions that the ‘Patient was presented in an unconscious state, peripheral pulses were absent, No carotid pulse was present, pupils were fixed And dilated. CPR was initiated and patient was intubated. 10 cycles of CPR were done, but the patient could not survive. A death- certificate was issued by the Chandan Hospital, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, which mentions cause of death as ‘Respiratory Hypokalemia/ Failure With Aspiration/ Hyponatermia/ Hypoglycemia/Shock, but a question mark has also been put against diagnosis and cause of death. PEA/

7. A copy of the Agreement unilaterally executed and signed by the informant and the applicant on 03.08.2024, has been annexed with the bail-application, wherein the informant has stated that his daughter died naturally and that he does not want any proceedings to continue against the applicant and his family members.

8. The State has filed a counter-affidavit opposing the bail- application, annexing therewith copies of material collected during investigation, wherein the Doctor who treated the victim stated that as the victim was brought to hospital in an unconscious condition, no information regarding her condition could be gathered from her. The applicant had stated that his wife was suffering from fever for the past two days and he had given her some medicine. After having food she vomited and fell unconscious. Treatment was started as per the information given by the applicant, but her pulse could not be felt and feeble cardiac activity could be observed on the monitor. CPR was given and the patient was intubated, but the patient could not survive even after 10 cycles of CPR.

9. In response to a question put by the Investigating Officer, the Doctor stated that he was not given any information about any injury suffered by the victim.

10. A copy of statement of the doctor, who conducted postmortem examination of the dead-body of the victim, has been annexed with the counter-affidavit, wherein he has stated that a contusion of size 7cm x 2 cm. was present on the right side of the chest of the dead-body; 350 ml. fluid mixed with coagulated blood was present in the abdomen. The nails, lips, face and tongue were syanosed and the internal wall of the intestines were congested. He specifically stated that the deceased did not die as a result of any illness and he stated that the injury could have been caused by beating or for any other reason also. He further stated that a final opinion can be given only after receipt of the viscera report. Viscera report is still awaited.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the informant has already stated on oath that his daughter died as a result of illness and he has stated that the applicant is not guilty. He further submitted that the F.I.R. levels same allegations against the applicant, his mother and brother, however, the allegations levelled against his brother could not be established during investigation and his mother has already been granted bail, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail.

12. Per contra, the learned A.G.A.-I has vehemently opposed the bail application. He submitted that keeping in view the statement of the doctors recorded by the investigating officer, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

13. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the facts that although the applicant took the victim to the hospital, the victim reached there in an unconscious condition with a feeble pulse, which could not be felt and which could only be seen in monitor; the applicant has told the doctor that the victim was unwell for two days and yet he took an unreasonably long time in taking her to the hospital, he took her to the Hospital only when her pulse had almost been lost and she had fallen unconscious; the postmortem report mentions an injury in the chest of the deceased and 350 ml. fluid mixed with coagulated blood was found in her abdomen and the applicant had not disclosed this injury to the Doctor, when he had taken the victim to the hospital, and that the Doctor has stated that the injury could have been caused due to beating, although the applicant’s mother has already been granted bail, the aforesaid aspects have not been taken into consideration while passing the order dated 17.10.2024 granting bail to the applicant’s mother, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts do not make out a case for exercise of discretion of this Court by ordering release of the applicant on bail. The bail application is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 A.Nigam (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Krishna Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, the learned A.G.A.-I.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0370 of 2024, under Sections 80, 85, 352 of B.N.S., Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow.

3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 09.08.2024 against the applicant, his mother and brother stating that the informant had got his daughter married to the applicant on 28.11.2023. All the accused persons used to harass her for demand of dowry. On a day before the incident the informant’s daughter had telephonically told the informant that in case he fails to fulfill their demand of dowry, she would be killed. On 02.08.2024, the informed received a phone call at 2.34 asking him to take away his daughter. The informant went to the applicant’s house, where the accused persons abused him. On making a phone call to the number from which he had received the call at 2.34 on 02.08.2024, the informant came to know that his daughter was admitted in Chandan Hospital, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, where the Doctors told that his daughter was dead.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail-application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent. He has no criminal history and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the allegations against the applicant’s brother Sanjay Gupta could not be established during investigation and a chargesheet was filed against the applicant and his mother Sarojini Agrahari. The applicant’s mother Sarojini Agrahari has already been granted bail by means of an order dated 17.10.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10922 of 2024.

6. Co-accused Sarojini Agrahari has been granted bail taking into consideration the treatment-card of the informant’s daughter, which mentions that the ‘Patient was presented in an unconscious state, peripheral pulses were absent, No carotid pulse was present, pupils were fixed And dilated. CPR was initiated and patient was intubated. 10 cycles of CPR were done, but the patient could not survive. A death- certificate was issued by the Chandan Hospital, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, which mentions cause of death as ‘Respiratory Hypokalemia/ Failure With Aspiration/ Hyponatermia/ Hypoglycemia/Shock, but a question mark has also been put against diagnosis and cause of death. PEA/

7. A copy of the Agreement unilaterally executed and signed by the informant and the applicant on 03.08.2024, has been annexed with the bail-application, wherein the informant has stated that his daughter died naturally and that he does not want any proceedings to continue against the applicant and his family members.

8. The State has filed a counter-affidavit opposing the bail- application, annexing therewith copies of material collected during investigation, wherein the Doctor who treated the victim stated that as the victim was brought to hospital in an unconscious condition, no information regarding her condition could be gathered from her. The applicant had stated that his wife was suffering from fever for the past two days and he had given her some medicine. After having food she vomited and fell unconscious. Treatment was started as per the information given by the applicant, but her pulse could not be felt and feeble cardiac activity could be observed on the monitor. CPR was given and the patient was intubated, but the patient could not survive even after 10 cycles of CPR.

9. In response to a question put by the Investigating Officer, the Doctor stated that he was not given any information about any injury suffered by the victim.

10. A copy of statement of the doctor, who conducted postmortem examination of the dead-body of the victim, has been annexed with the counter-affidavit, wherein he has stated that a contusion of size 7cm x 2 cm. was present on the right side of the chest of the dead-body; 350 ml. fluid mixed with coagulated blood was present in the abdomen. The nails, lips, face and tongue were syanosed and the internal wall of the intestines were congested. He specifically stated that the deceased did not die as a result of any illness and he stated that the injury could have been caused by beating or for any other reason also. He further stated that a final opinion can be given only after receipt of the viscera report. Viscera report is still awaited.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the informant has already stated on oath that his daughter died as a result of illness and he has stated that the applicant is not guilty. He further submitted that the F.I.R. levels same allegations against the applicant, his mother and brother, however, the allegations levelled against his brother could not be established during investigation and his mother has already been granted bail, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail.

12. Per contra, the learned A.G.A.-I has vehemently opposed the bail application. He submitted that keeping in view the statement of the doctors recorded by the investigating officer, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

13. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the facts that although the applicant took the victim to the hospital, the victim reached there in an unconscious condition with a feeble pulse, which could not be felt and which could only be seen in monitor; the applicant has told the doctor that the victim was unwell for two days and yet he took an unreasonably long time in taking her to the hospital, he took her to the Hospital only when her pulse had almost been lost and she had fallen unconscious; the postmortem report mentions an injury in the chest of the deceased and 350 ml. fluid mixed with coagulated blood was found in her abdomen and the applicant had not disclosed this injury to the Doctor, when he had taken the victim to the hospital, and that the Doctor has stated that the injury could have been caused due to beating, although the applicant’s mother has already been granted bail, the aforesaid aspects have not been taken into consideration while passing the order dated 17.10.2024 granting bail to the applicant’s mother, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts do not make out a case for exercise of discretion of this Court by ordering release of the applicant on bail. The bail application is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 A.Nigam (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)