High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Ramanuj Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Chandra Prakash Awasthi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Shatruhan Yadav, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 115 of 2024, under Sections 108, 115(2), 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station Badausa, District Banda during pendency of the trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 25.08.2024 against applicant and his second wife Smt. Manoji and according to the FIR marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the sister of the informant namely Anju Pal and from their wedlock one female child was born but after one month from her birth, Anju Pal i.e. first wife of the applicant died and thereafter applicant performed second marriage with co-accused Smt. Manoji and co-accused Smt. Manoji used to torture her step daughter and applicant also supported her and on 18.08.2024 informant received an information from his aunt Malti that his niece aged about 14 years is serious and she has taken to the hospital where doctor referred her medical college where doctor declared her dead.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant is the father of the deceased and on the basis of false allegation, he has been made accused in the present matter.

6. He further submits, actually applicant did job in the State of Gujarat and even on the date of incident he was not present at his home and even from the entire record including FIR, it reflects that main allegation of torture was against co-accused Smt. Manoji i.e. second wife of the applicant.

7. He further submits, however, as per prosecution due to the abetment of the applicant and co-accused his daughter committed suicide but there is no cogent evidence of abetment against the applicant on record.

8. He further submits, from the post mortem report it reflects, cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained and her viscera was preserved and till date however viscera report is not on record but as applicant was not present at his home, therefore, even if in the viscera poison would be found then also applicant cannot be held responsible for that.

9. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 15.11.2024.

10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted, applicant is the father of the deceased and after his second marriage, he also tortured the deceased along with his second wife i.e. co-accused Smt. Manoji. They further submitted, as post mortem suggests that deceased sustained injuries and her viscera is still awaited, therefore, bail application of the applicant should be adjourned till the receiving of viscera report but they conceded the fact that at the time of incident applicant was not present at his home as he was in the Gujarat with regard to his job.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

12. From the record, it reflects, applicant is father of the deceased and as per prosecution after the death of his first wife he performed second marriage with co-accused Smt. Manoji and thereafter he along with her used to torture the deceased who was his daughter born from his first wife but it appears, except the bald and verbal allegation there is no cogent evidence of abetment against the applicant on record.

13. Further, from the statement of aunt of the informant namely Malti recorded during investigation it reflects, applicant did job in Gujarat and from the material available on record it reflects, at the time of incident he was not present at his home.

14. Further, however, viscera report of the deceased is still awaited but as it appears, applicant was not present in his home, therefore, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that even if viscera report would disclose that deceased died due to consumption of poison, then also applicant cannot be held responsible for that.

15. Further, it is not the case of the prosecution that applicant and co-accused committed the murder of the deceased and according to the prosecution, deceased committed suicide.

16. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 15.11.2024.

17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

19. Let the applicant - Sandeep be released on bail in the aforesaid case on 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 appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

20. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

21. 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. ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 24.2.2025 AK Pandey

2. Heard Sri Ramanuj Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Chandra Prakash Awasthi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Shatruhan Yadav, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 115 of 2024, under Sections 108, 115(2), 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station Badausa, District Banda during pendency of the trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 25.08.2024 against applicant and his second wife Smt. Manoji and according to the FIR marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the sister of the informant namely Anju Pal and from their wedlock one female child was born but after one month from her birth, Anju Pal i.e. first wife of the applicant died and thereafter applicant performed second marriage with co-accused Smt. Manoji and co-accused Smt. Manoji used to torture her step daughter and applicant also supported her and on 18.08.2024 informant received an information from his aunt Malti that his niece aged about 14 years is serious and she has taken to the hospital where doctor referred her medical college where doctor declared her dead.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant is the father of the deceased and on the basis of false allegation, he has been made accused in the present matter.

6. He further submits, actually applicant did job in the State of Gujarat and even on the date of incident he was not present at his home and even from the entire record including FIR, it reflects that main allegation of torture was against co-accused Smt. Manoji i.e. second wife of the applicant.

7. He further submits, however, as per prosecution due to the abetment of the applicant and co-accused his daughter committed suicide but there is no cogent evidence of abetment against the applicant on record.

8. He further submits, from the post mortem report it reflects, cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained and her viscera was preserved and till date however viscera report is not on record but as applicant was not present at his home, therefore, even if in the viscera poison would be found then also applicant cannot be held responsible for that.

9. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 15.11.2024.

10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted, applicant is the father of the deceased and after his second marriage, he also tortured the deceased along with his second wife i.e. co-accused Smt. Manoji. They further submitted, as post mortem suggests that deceased sustained injuries and her viscera is still awaited, therefore, bail application of the applicant should be adjourned till the receiving of viscera report but they conceded the fact that at the time of incident applicant was not present at his home as he was in the Gujarat with regard to his job.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

12. From the record, it reflects, applicant is father of the deceased and as per prosecution after the death of his first wife he performed second marriage with co-accused Smt. Manoji and thereafter he along with her used to torture the deceased who was his daughter born from his first wife but it appears, except the bald and verbal allegation there is no cogent evidence of abetment against the applicant on record.

13. Further, from the statement of aunt of the informant namely Malti recorded during investigation it reflects, applicant did job in Gujarat and from the material available on record it reflects, at the time of incident he was not present at his home.

14. Further, however, viscera report of the deceased is still awaited but as it appears, applicant was not present in his home, therefore, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that even if viscera report would disclose that deceased died due to consumption of poison, then also applicant cannot be held responsible for that.

15. Further, it is not the case of the prosecution that applicant and co-accused committed the murder of the deceased and according to the prosecution, deceased committed suicide.

16. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 15.11.2024.

17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

19. Let the applicant - Sandeep be released on bail in the aforesaid case on 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 appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

20. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

21. 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. ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 24.2.2025 AK Pandey