High Court

4. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short FIR) wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 16.07.2024 but the FIR has been lodged on 18.07.2024. The entire family of the applicant has been implicated in the FIR and only general allegations of demanding dowry and torture has been levelled against all accused persons. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that relations of the applicant with his wife was cordial and they were happily married as husband and wife. From the said wedlock they were blessed with three children namely Raghav, Anya and Shivangi, who were aged about 3 years, 1 year and 1 year, respectively. Raghav and Anya are twins. Since the wife of the applicant committed suicide and he is in jail, therefore, his children are not being looked after properly though presently they are living with their maternal grandparents. The cause of death is poisoning. Since cause of death was not ascertained, therefore, viscera was preserved and as per viscera report the poisonous content was 'Aluminium Phosphide'. As per prosecution story the family members of the applicant had administered the poisonous content in the food given to the deceased and she died after consuming such food. However, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that 'Aluminium Phosphide' may not be administered in any food for the reason that if such poisonous content is administered in any food item or liquor no person can consume the same on account of its bitter taste.

6. Considering the aforesaid aspect the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2024 (3) SCC 164 has observed that such poisonous content may not be administered in the food contents or any liquor and if some poisonous content is forcefully given to the victim there must be some evidence of providing such content forcefully. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph 35 of the aforesaid judgment that forceful administration of this substance also seems doubtful since there are no injury marks suggestive of a scuffle. So, the view of the Hon'ble Apex Court was that such poisonous content may not be provided by deceitful means.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has states that considering the aforesaid aspect and plea of his children the applicant may be granted bail. There is no criminal history of any kind whatsoever against the present applicant. The applicant undertakes that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly.

8. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the complainant/ informant have vehemently opposed the aforesaid bail application by submitting that the present applicant being the husband should properly look after his children and if she died in a mysterious circumstances in his home the burden shall lie upon him of proving that he has not tortured his wife mentally or physically, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail, but they could not dispute the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicant.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that only general allegations have been levelled against the present applicant and his family members; the cause of death was poisoning and as per viscera report the poisonous content was 'Aluminium Phosphide' which cannot be administered; there were no injury marks on the body of the deceased; there is no criminal history of any kind whatsoever against the present applicant and the undertaking that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings properly and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

10. Let applicant- Shiv Raj Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. . (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 15.7.2025/Arnima

4. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short FIR) wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 16.07.2024 but the FIR has been lodged on 18.07.2024. The entire family of the applicant has been implicated in the FIR and only general allegations of demanding dowry and torture has been levelled against all accused persons. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that relations of the applicant with his wife was cordial and they were happily married as husband and wife. From the said wedlock they were blessed with three children namely Raghav, Anya and Shivangi, who were aged about 3 years, 1 year and 1 year, respectively. Raghav and Anya are twins. Since the wife of the applicant committed suicide and he is in jail, therefore, his children are not being looked after properly though presently they are living with their maternal grandparents. The cause of death is poisoning. Since cause of death was not ascertained, therefore, viscera was preserved and as per viscera report the poisonous content was 'Aluminium Phosphide'. As per prosecution story the family members of the applicant had administered the poisonous content in the food given to the deceased and she died after consuming such food. However, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that 'Aluminium Phosphide' may not be administered in any food for the reason that if such poisonous content is administered in any food item or liquor no person can consume the same on account of its bitter taste.

6. Considering the aforesaid aspect the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2024 (3) SCC 164 has observed that such poisonous content may not be administered in the food contents or any liquor and if some poisonous content is forcefully given to the victim there must be some evidence of providing such content forcefully. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph 35 of the aforesaid judgment that forceful administration of this substance also seems doubtful since there are no injury marks suggestive of a scuffle. So, the view of the Hon'ble Apex Court was that such poisonous content may not be provided by deceitful means.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has states that considering the aforesaid aspect and plea of his children the applicant may be granted bail. There is no criminal history of any kind whatsoever against the present applicant. The applicant undertakes that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly.

8. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the complainant/ informant have vehemently opposed the aforesaid bail application by submitting that the present applicant being the husband should properly look after his children and if she died in a mysterious circumstances in his home the burden shall lie upon him of proving that he has not tortured his wife mentally or physically, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail, but they could not dispute the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicant.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that only general allegations have been levelled against the present applicant and his family members; the cause of death was poisoning and as per viscera report the poisonous content was 'Aluminium Phosphide' which cannot be administered; there were no injury marks on the body of the deceased; there is no criminal history of any kind whatsoever against the present applicant and the undertaking that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings properly and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

10. Let applicant- Shiv Raj Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. . (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 15.7.2025/Arnima