High Court

2. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 657 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Deoband, District- Saharanpur, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Muslim Rites on 24.4.2024, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of additional dowry whereby Rs.1 lakh was given about three months before her death. It was also demanded by the applicant and other family members that FRONX car given at the time of marriage be exchanged with CRETA car, as such, led her to death on 29.11.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is the husband of the deceased person and he has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about nine hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant used to do job in Saudi Arabia and had come after the insistence of the deceased only, but during his absence the deceased came in contact of one Dr. Munir and had regular parlays with him. The mobile number of the deceased was 9046413192 and that of Dr. Munir was 9761198594. The CDRs of the said mobile numbers could have revealed the truth, but the Investigating Officer has deliberately not taken into possession the CDRs for the reasons best known to him, as such, he has not acted fairly.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the inquest proceedings were undertaken at the time the FIR has been instituted as the inquest report itself indicates that the proceedings were started on 29.11.2024 at 10:40 p.m. and were concluded at 11:55 p.m. and the FIR has been instituted on 29.11.2024 at 11:24 p.m., as such, the informant cannot be present at two places at one and the same time, as such, the complete inquest proceedings are false and the FIR is ante-time. The distance between place of occurrence and police station is 07 kilometers. It is a clear cut case of false implication.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that there are two applications given by the father of the applicant. One was given on 25.9.2024 at Police Chowki Gopali/Thetki, P.S. Deoband, Saharanpur and another was given on 26.9.2024 at P.S. Deoband, Saharanpur, which were duly received and have been filed as Annexure-16 to the affidavit. In the said applications, the mobile number of the deceased and that of her paramour Dr. Munir is mentioned and the police did not care to investigate the said matter. The said applications were moved about two months before the incident and indicate the proximity of deceased with one Dr. Munir.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed much reliance on the CCTV footage of the place of occurrence, which has been filed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit, whereby the applicant is seen entering the room of occurrence twice and after his coming out of the room for the second time, the door of the room of the deceased person was found locked from inside and it has also come up in the said CCTV footage that the door was broken open, which indicates that deceased had committed suicide may be out of shame or other reasons best known to her.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that it is true that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging and one abrasion has been observed on the right hand of the deceased person but that abrasion is minor injury and may be caused due to a scuffle between the applicant and deceased.

11. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 2.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

12. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant and the FIR is prompt. Although it is true that there is discrepancy in the time of inquest proceedings and the informant has been arrayed as Panch witness no.1 in the said proceedings, but taking into consideration the abrasion sustained by the deceased person, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that presence of the informant has been shown at two places at one and the same time coupled by the fact that cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging and there are two applications moved by the father of the applicant at the police station and chowki concerned, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

14. Let the applicant- Soud, who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

16. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal)

2. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 657 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Deoband, District- Saharanpur, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Muslim Rites on 24.4.2024, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of additional dowry whereby Rs.1 lakh was given about three months before her death. It was also demanded by the applicant and other family members that FRONX car given at the time of marriage be exchanged with CRETA car, as such, led her to death on 29.11.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is the husband of the deceased person and he has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about nine hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant used to do job in Saudi Arabia and had come after the insistence of the deceased only, but during his absence the deceased came in contact of one Dr. Munir and had regular parlays with him. The mobile number of the deceased was 9046413192 and that of Dr. Munir was 9761198594. The CDRs of the said mobile numbers could have revealed the truth, but the Investigating Officer has deliberately not taken into possession the CDRs for the reasons best known to him, as such, he has not acted fairly.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the inquest proceedings were undertaken at the time the FIR has been instituted as the inquest report itself indicates that the proceedings were started on 29.11.2024 at 10:40 p.m. and were concluded at 11:55 p.m. and the FIR has been instituted on 29.11.2024 at 11:24 p.m., as such, the informant cannot be present at two places at one and the same time, as such, the complete inquest proceedings are false and the FIR is ante-time. The distance between place of occurrence and police station is 07 kilometers. It is a clear cut case of false implication.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that there are two applications given by the father of the applicant. One was given on 25.9.2024 at Police Chowki Gopali/Thetki, P.S. Deoband, Saharanpur and another was given on 26.9.2024 at P.S. Deoband, Saharanpur, which were duly received and have been filed as Annexure-16 to the affidavit. In the said applications, the mobile number of the deceased and that of her paramour Dr. Munir is mentioned and the police did not care to investigate the said matter. The said applications were moved about two months before the incident and indicate the proximity of deceased with one Dr. Munir.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed much reliance on the CCTV footage of the place of occurrence, which has been filed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit, whereby the applicant is seen entering the room of occurrence twice and after his coming out of the room for the second time, the door of the room of the deceased person was found locked from inside and it has also come up in the said CCTV footage that the door was broken open, which indicates that deceased had committed suicide may be out of shame or other reasons best known to her.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that it is true that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging and one abrasion has been observed on the right hand of the deceased person but that abrasion is minor injury and may be caused due to a scuffle between the applicant and deceased.

11. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 2.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

12. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant and the FIR is prompt. Although it is true that there is discrepancy in the time of inquest proceedings and the informant has been arrayed as Panch witness no.1 in the said proceedings, but taking into consideration the abrasion sustained by the deceased person, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that presence of the informant has been shown at two places at one and the same time coupled by the fact that cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging and there are two applications moved by the father of the applicant at the police station and chowki concerned, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

14. Let the applicant- Soud, who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

16. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal)