Allahabad High Court
Case Details
involved in Session Trial No. 386 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 130 of 2025, under Sections 80, 85 BNS and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Salempur, district Deoria, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant, who is father of the deceased Rajnandini, got an F.I.R. lodged on 08.04.2024 against the applicant Raju Kumar (husband of the deceased) and his other family members stating inter alia that marriage of his daughter was solemnized on 29.01.2024 with the applicant and in the marriage, he has given sufficient dowry as per his capacity but his daughter was being harassed in her matrimonial home by her in-laws and there was additional demand of Rs. 2 lacs from their side. On non-fulfillment of their demand, his daughter was strangled to death on 06.04.2025. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is husband of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in this case. General allegation of demand of dowry has been levelled against all the accused persons, which is false and against the evidence on record. The deceased died by committing suicide. As 2 BAIL No. 32556 of 2025 soon as the incident took place, she was taken to the Combined Health Centre, Salempur, where she was declared dead by the doctor and information about the said incident was given to the police by the ward boy, on which inquest proceeding of dead body of the deceased was conducted on 06.04.2025 and at that time, Raj Kumar (brother of the deceased), applicant Raju Kumar and other family members were present but they did not make allegation against the applicant regarding demand of dowry. Thereafter, post mortem of the deceased was conducted on 07.04.2025 and body of the deceased was cremated in presence of both the family members. Later on, the F.I.R. has been lodged on 08.04.2025 after two days of the incident and without any plausible explanation of delay. It is further submitted that a suicide note was also recovered wherein the deceased did not make allegation against the applicant and his family members. The applicant does not have any criminal history to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 09.04.2025 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. but does not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that as per the post mortem report, cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging and no other injury has been found on the body of the deceased. Effort has been made by the applicant to save the life of his wife as she was taken to the hospital but she could not survive. The applicant and his family members were also present at the spot and also participated in the inquest proceeding, which shows natural conduct of in-laws of the deceased and the same is one of the relevant factor for considering bail. 3 BAIL No. 32556 of 2025 Here it is also relevant to mention that the parameters for considering the bail of accused pending trial and conviction or acquittal of accused after adducing evidences by both the parties before the trial Court are different. This Court is of the view that each case turns on its own facts and circumstances. Even a little difference between the facts of two cases, may alter the entire aspect. In view of the provisions under Sections 117 and 118 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, it is not that the Courts will shut eyes and act as a silent spectator in all the cases while considering bail applications, the Courts are duty bound to consider broader aspect of the matter and in the light of nature of allegations, the relevant materials of the case diary either produced by the complainant's side or by the accused's side to prove his/her innocence cannot be ignored because bail matters are also related to the valuable liberty of the accused. The further details relating to the incident need not be referred to herein since the allegations and the defence thereto is still open to be urged by the parties in the trial Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant Raju Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 4 BAIL No. 32556 of 2025 inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail. September 22, 2025 Shubham (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.)
involved in Session Trial No. 386 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 130 of 2025, under Sections 80, 85 BNS and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Salempur, district Deoria, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant, who is father of the deceased Rajnandini, got an F.I.R. lodged on 08.04.2024 against the applicant Raju Kumar (husband of the deceased) and his other family members stating inter alia that marriage of his daughter was solemnized on 29.01.2024 with the applicant and in the marriage, he has given sufficient dowry as per his capacity but his daughter was being harassed in her matrimonial home by her in-laws and there was additional demand of Rs. 2 lacs from their side. On non-fulfillment of their demand, his daughter was strangled to death on 06.04.2025. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is husband of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in this case. General allegation of demand of dowry has been levelled against all the accused persons, which is false and against the evidence on record. The deceased died by committing suicide. As 2 BAIL No. 32556 of 2025 soon as the incident took place, she was taken to the Combined Health Centre, Salempur, where she was declared dead by the doctor and information about the said incident was given to the police by the ward boy, on which inquest proceeding of dead body of the deceased was conducted on 06.04.2025 and at that time, Raj Kumar (brother of the deceased), applicant Raju Kumar and other family members were present but they did not make allegation against the applicant regarding demand of dowry. Thereafter, post mortem of the deceased was conducted on 07.04.2025 and body of the deceased was cremated in presence of both the family members. Later on, the F.I.R. has been lodged on 08.04.2025 after two days of the incident and without any plausible explanation of delay. It is further submitted that a suicide note was also recovered wherein the deceased did not make allegation against the applicant and his family members. The applicant does not have any criminal history to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 09.04.2025 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. but does not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that as per the post mortem report, cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging and no other injury has been found on the body of the deceased. Effort has been made by the applicant to save the life of his wife as she was taken to the hospital but she could not survive. The applicant and his family members were also present at the spot and also participated in the inquest proceeding, which shows natural conduct of in-laws of the deceased and the same is one of the relevant factor for considering bail. 3 BAIL No. 32556 of 2025 Here it is also relevant to mention that the parameters for considering the bail of accused pending trial and conviction or acquittal of accused after adducing evidences by both the parties before the trial Court are different. This Court is of the view that each case turns on its own facts and circumstances. Even a little difference between the facts of two cases, may alter the entire aspect. In view of the provisions under Sections 117 and 118 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, it is not that the Courts will shut eyes and act as a silent spectator in all the cases while considering bail applications, the Courts are duty bound to consider broader aspect of the matter and in the light of nature of allegations, the relevant materials of the case diary either produced by the complainant's side or by the accused's side to prove his/her innocence cannot be ignored because bail matters are also related to the valuable liberty of the accused. The further details relating to the incident need not be referred to herein since the allegations and the defence thereto is still open to be urged by the parties in the trial Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant Raju Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 4 BAIL No. 32556 of 2025 inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail. September 22, 2025 Shubham (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.)