High Court

2. Heard Sri Prabha Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant-Ashish Upadhyay, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.403 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Fatehganj West, District Bareilly.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 2.11.2024 by Raghvendra Chaturvedi against the applicant and Sandhya Sharma (nanad) alleging therein that the marriage of his sister Goldi was solemnized with Ashish Upadhyay (the applicant) on 2.5.2018. After marriage the accused persons were not happy with the dowry and used to assault her and torture her. Many times panchayat was also collected but they did not mend their ways. They used to torture her. Goldi was having pregnancy of about eight months but the accused persons used to torture her and assault her. On 25.10.2024 at about 11.45 hours, he received an information from unknown number that his sister has died and if he wants to see her, he was told to come after which he went there and found his sister dead. A report be lodged and action be taken.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the deceased was unwell and was taken to the doctor where she was under treatment but she died. It is submitted that allegations regarding demand of dowry are totally false and incorrect. It is submitted that although during the investigation the Investigating Officer saw C.C.T.V. Footage but there was nothing incriminating in it. It is submitted that the investigation in the matter has concluded and charge sheet has been submitted. The marriage of the applicant with the deceased was without dowry. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 28 and is in jail since 21.11.2024.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house and there is an allegation of demand of dowry against the applicant and his sister. The applicant is named in the FIR. The bail application of the applicant be thus rejected.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. There is an allegation of demand of dowry, torture and harassment by the applicant and other co-accused persons. The deceased died unnaturally within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house. The applicant is named in the FIR. The deceased Goldi was found to have received a contusion on her skull which was noted by the doctor as an ante-mortem injury and further the brain was found to contain haematoma. The doctor found uterus to be gravid and male foetus of about eight months was found. The cause of death was opined by the doctor coma due to antemortem head injury.

8. Looking to the nature of injuries and the opinion regarding death given therein it cannot in any manner be found in a case of suicide, various persons are involved in it. The Apex Court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad Vs. the State of U.P. & Another in SLP (Crl.) No. 15156 of 2024 has stated that granting of bail in such matters has to be considered seriously looking to the gravity of offence. Paragraph 15 of the said judgement reads as under:- "15. We also find it necessary to express our concern over the seemingly mechanical approach adopted by the High Court in granting bail to the Respondent accused. While the Court did note the absence of prior criminal records, it failed to fully consider the stark realities of the allegations. It is unfortunate that in today's society, dowry deaths remain a grave social concern, and in our opinion, the courts are dutybound to undertake deeper scrutiny of the circumstances under which bail is granted in these cases. The social message emanating from judicial orders in such cases cannot be overstated: when a young bride dies under suspicious circumstances within barely two years of marriage, the judiciary must reflect heightened vigilance and seriousness. A superficial application of bail parameters not only undermines the gravity of the offence itself but also risks weakening public faith in the judiciary's resolve to combat the menace of dowry deaths. It is this very perception of justice, both within and outside the courtroom, that courts must safeguard, lest we risk normalizing a crime that continues to claim numerous innocent lives. These observations regarding grant of bail in grievous crimes were thoroughly dealt with by this Court in Ajwar v. Waseem in the following paras:

26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. (Chaman Lal v. State of UP.. (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974], Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]: Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286: (2010) 1 SCC (Cr) 1368]: Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 508: (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129: (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118: (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558].]

27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior court. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the society resulting in such an order. In P v. State of M.P. [P v. State of M.P., (2022) 15 SCC 211] decided by a three-Judge Bench of this Court [authored by one of us (Hima Kohli, J.)] has spelt out the considerations that must weigh with the Court for interfering in an order granting bail to an accused under Section 439(1)CrPC in the following words: (SCC p. 224, para 24) "24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling bail once granted, the court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349: 1995 SCC (Cri) 237]. To put it differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court would be loathe to interfere with an order passed by the court below granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the appellate court." Considerations for setting aside bail orders

28. The considerations that weigh with the appellate court for setting aside the bail order on an application being moved by the aggrieved party include any supervening circumstances that may have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to tamper with the evidence in any manner. We may add that this list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the court must be cautious that at the stage of granting bail, only a prima facie case needs to be examined and detailed reasons relating to the merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the accused, ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail order should reveal the factors that have been considered by the Court for granting relief to the accused."

9. In view of the above looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

10. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Gaurav Kuls

2. Heard Sri Prabha Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant-Ashish Upadhyay, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.403 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Fatehganj West, District Bareilly.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 2.11.2024 by Raghvendra Chaturvedi against the applicant and Sandhya Sharma (nanad) alleging therein that the marriage of his sister Goldi was solemnized with Ashish Upadhyay (the applicant) on 2.5.2018. After marriage the accused persons were not happy with the dowry and used to assault her and torture her. Many times panchayat was also collected but they did not mend their ways. They used to torture her. Goldi was having pregnancy of about eight months but the accused persons used to torture her and assault her. On 25.10.2024 at about 11.45 hours, he received an information from unknown number that his sister has died and if he wants to see her, he was told to come after which he went there and found his sister dead. A report be lodged and action be taken.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the deceased was unwell and was taken to the doctor where she was under treatment but she died. It is submitted that allegations regarding demand of dowry are totally false and incorrect. It is submitted that although during the investigation the Investigating Officer saw C.C.T.V. Footage but there was nothing incriminating in it. It is submitted that the investigation in the matter has concluded and charge sheet has been submitted. The marriage of the applicant with the deceased was without dowry. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 28 and is in jail since 21.11.2024.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house and there is an allegation of demand of dowry against the applicant and his sister. The applicant is named in the FIR. The bail application of the applicant be thus rejected.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. There is an allegation of demand of dowry, torture and harassment by the applicant and other co-accused persons. The deceased died unnaturally within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house. The applicant is named in the FIR. The deceased Goldi was found to have received a contusion on her skull which was noted by the doctor as an ante-mortem injury and further the brain was found to contain haematoma. The doctor found uterus to be gravid and male foetus of about eight months was found. The cause of death was opined by the doctor coma due to antemortem head injury.

8. Looking to the nature of injuries and the opinion regarding death given therein it cannot in any manner be found in a case of suicide, various persons are involved in it. The Apex Court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad Vs. the State of U.P. & Another in SLP (Crl.) No. 15156 of 2024 has stated that granting of bail in such matters has to be considered seriously looking to the gravity of offence. Paragraph 15 of the said judgement reads as under:- "15. We also find it necessary to express our concern over the seemingly mechanical approach adopted by the High Court in granting bail to the Respondent accused. While the Court did note the absence of prior criminal records, it failed to fully consider the stark realities of the allegations. It is unfortunate that in today's society, dowry deaths remain a grave social concern, and in our opinion, the courts are dutybound to undertake deeper scrutiny of the circumstances under which bail is granted in these cases. The social message emanating from judicial orders in such cases cannot be overstated: when a young bride dies under suspicious circumstances within barely two years of marriage, the judiciary must reflect heightened vigilance and seriousness. A superficial application of bail parameters not only undermines the gravity of the offence itself but also risks weakening public faith in the judiciary's resolve to combat the menace of dowry deaths. It is this very perception of justice, both within and outside the courtroom, that courts must safeguard, lest we risk normalizing a crime that continues to claim numerous innocent lives. These observations regarding grant of bail in grievous crimes were thoroughly dealt with by this Court in Ajwar v. Waseem in the following paras:

26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. (Chaman Lal v. State of UP.. (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974], Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]: Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286: (2010) 1 SCC (Cr) 1368]: Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 508: (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129: (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118: (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558].]

27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior court. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the society resulting in such an order. In P v. State of M.P. [P v. State of M.P., (2022) 15 SCC 211] decided by a three-Judge Bench of this Court [authored by one of us (Hima Kohli, J.)] has spelt out the considerations that must weigh with the Court for interfering in an order granting bail to an accused under Section 439(1)CrPC in the following words: (SCC p. 224, para 24) "24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling bail once granted, the court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349: 1995 SCC (Cri) 237]. To put it differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court would be loathe to interfere with an order passed by the court below granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the appellate court." Considerations for setting aside bail orders

28. The considerations that weigh with the appellate court for setting aside the bail order on an application being moved by the aggrieved party include any supervening circumstances that may have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to tamper with the evidence in any manner. We may add that this list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the court must be cautious that at the stage of granting bail, only a prima facie case needs to be examined and detailed reasons relating to the merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the accused, ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail order should reveal the factors that have been considered by the Court for granting relief to the accused."

9. In view of the above looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

10. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Gaurav Kuls