High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Vivekanand Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. This matter is nominated to this Bench vide order dated 23.1.2024 passed by Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice.

4. This is the second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the applicant Sarvesh Gond, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 164 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at P.S. Bhaluani District Deoria.

5. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.8.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35527 of 2023. The same reads as under:- "1. Heard Sri Chandra Bhushan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State- respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 164 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Bhaluani, District- Deoria, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and his family members and according to the FIR, marriage of the applicant was performed with the deceased in the year 2018 and after marriage, applicant and his family members tortured her for demand of Rs. three lacs and on 18.11.2022 informant received an information that his daughter i.e. deceased hanged herself.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is the husband of the deceased and entire allegation of demand of dowry and torture made against him is totally false and baseless and actually applicant resided in Qatar and heavy amount of money and jewelleries of the deceased were taken by her family members and when she demand her entire belongings then they refused to return and only due to this reason she committed suicide.

5. He further submitted that at the time incident applicant was in Qatar and only being husband of the deceased, he has been roped in the present matter. He further submitted that even as per the autopsy report of the deceased, she died due to hanging and this fact clearly suggests that she committed suicide.

6. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 19.11.2022 i.e. for more than eight months.

7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is the husband of the deceased and his wife died within five years of her marriage in her matrimonial home under abnormal circumstances and there is also allegation of demand of dowry and except bald and vague defence taken in paragraph no. 11 of the affidavit, there is no evidence on record, which can show that on the date of incident, applicant was in Qatar rather there is evidence, which shows that applicant was very well present in India on the date of incident.

8. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

9. Applicant is the husband of the deceased and his wife died due to hanging within five years of her marriage in her matrimonial home and there is also allegation of demand of dowry and applicant failed to explain the abnormal death of his wife, however, in paragraph no. 11 of the affidavit he made an averment that he was working in Qatar and on the alleged date of incident he was in Qatar but from the material available on record, it reflects that on the date of incident he was present in India at his home.

10. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

11. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected.

12. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial."

6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the deceased/Smt. Meera Devi was found to have received single ligature mark on her body and cause of death has been opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. It is submitted that trial in the matter has started in which Gulab Gond/first informant has been examined as P.W.-1, Arun Kumar the relative of the deceased has been examined as P.W.-2 and Smt. Salehra Devi the mother of the deceased has been examined as P.W.-3 who have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. It is submitted that there is no credible evidence against the applicant. It is further submitted that co-accused Radhe Shyam Gond the father-in-law of the deceased, has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.03.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.800 of 2023. Further another co-accused Kalawati Devi the mother-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 30.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13103 of 2023, copies of the said orders have been collectively annexed as Annexure No.8 to the bail application. It is submitted that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant. It is argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-20 of the affidavit and is in jail since 19.11.2022.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail.

8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.8.2023. The matter is before this Bench after appropriate nomination by Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice. The trial in the matter has started in which three prosecution witnesses have been examined and the said witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile.

9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

10. Let the applicant- Sarvesh Gond, 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) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C. (V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

11. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

12. The bail application is allowed.

13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Naresh NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Vivekanand Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. This matter is nominated to this Bench vide order dated 23.1.2024 passed by Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice.

4. This is the second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the applicant Sarvesh Gond, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 164 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at P.S. Bhaluani District Deoria.

5. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.8.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35527 of 2023. The same reads as under:- "1. Heard Sri Chandra Bhushan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State- respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 164 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Bhaluani, District- Deoria, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and his family members and according to the FIR, marriage of the applicant was performed with the deceased in the year 2018 and after marriage, applicant and his family members tortured her for demand of Rs. three lacs and on 18.11.2022 informant received an information that his daughter i.e. deceased hanged herself.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is the husband of the deceased and entire allegation of demand of dowry and torture made against him is totally false and baseless and actually applicant resided in Qatar and heavy amount of money and jewelleries of the deceased were taken by her family members and when she demand her entire belongings then they refused to return and only due to this reason she committed suicide.

5. He further submitted that at the time incident applicant was in Qatar and only being husband of the deceased, he has been roped in the present matter. He further submitted that even as per the autopsy report of the deceased, she died due to hanging and this fact clearly suggests that she committed suicide.

6. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 19.11.2022 i.e. for more than eight months.

7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is the husband of the deceased and his wife died within five years of her marriage in her matrimonial home under abnormal circumstances and there is also allegation of demand of dowry and except bald and vague defence taken in paragraph no. 11 of the affidavit, there is no evidence on record, which can show that on the date of incident, applicant was in Qatar rather there is evidence, which shows that applicant was very well present in India on the date of incident.

8. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

9. Applicant is the husband of the deceased and his wife died due to hanging within five years of her marriage in her matrimonial home and there is also allegation of demand of dowry and applicant failed to explain the abnormal death of his wife, however, in paragraph no. 11 of the affidavit he made an averment that he was working in Qatar and on the alleged date of incident he was in Qatar but from the material available on record, it reflects that on the date of incident he was present in India at his home.

10. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

11. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected.

12. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial."

6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the deceased/Smt. Meera Devi was found to have received single ligature mark on her body and cause of death has been opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. It is submitted that trial in the matter has started in which Gulab Gond/first informant has been examined as P.W.-1, Arun Kumar the relative of the deceased has been examined as P.W.-2 and Smt. Salehra Devi the mother of the deceased has been examined as P.W.-3 who have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. It is submitted that there is no credible evidence against the applicant. It is further submitted that co-accused Radhe Shyam Gond the father-in-law of the deceased, has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.03.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.800 of 2023. Further another co-accused Kalawati Devi the mother-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 30.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13103 of 2023, copies of the said orders have been collectively annexed as Annexure No.8 to the bail application. It is submitted that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant. It is argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-20 of the affidavit and is in jail since 19.11.2022.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail.

8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.8.2023. The matter is before this Bench after appropriate nomination by Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice. The trial in the matter has started in which three prosecution witnesses have been examined and the said witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile.

9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

10. Let the applicant- Sarvesh Gond, 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) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C. (V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

11. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

12. The bail application is allowed.

13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Naresh NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad