High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Rahul Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Sri Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.857 of 2023, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad, during pendency of the trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 26.10.2023 against applicant, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 120-B IPC and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act and according to the FIR on 24.02.2023, applicant enticed away the sister of the informant and thereafter, he however performed marriage with her but after marriage, he started making demand of Rs.5,00,000/- and due to non-fulfillment of his demand, he started torturing her and in the night of 24/25.10.2023 committed her murder by using his licensee pistol.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 120-B IPC and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act but when it was found actually it is not a case of dowry death then case was converted under Section 302 I.P.C.

6. He further submits that actually deceased Mamta was not the wife of the applicant but she just worked in the office of the applicant and however, she died due to firearm injury in his office but when applicant arrived at his office and found that she was lying dead then he was under the impression that she died due to electrocution and therefore, he informed the police about this fact.

7. He further submits that on his information inquest was conducted and considering the fact of the case, it cannot be said that applicant gave wrong information about the death of the deceased.

8. He further submits that except the fact that deceased died in the office of the applicant through firearm, there is no other evidence against him on record.

9. He further submits that as per prosecution, applicant committed the murder of the deceased through his licensee pistol but from the report of the FSL, which has been annexed by learned A.G.A. alongwith compliance affidavit, it reflects, the pistol of the applicant could not match with the cartridges, which were found at the place of incident and this fact again suggest that actually applicant did not commit the murder of the deceased.

10. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 27.10.2023 i.e. for last more than a year.

11. He further submits that however, applicant is in jail for last more than a year but till date, only one prosecution witness could be examined.

12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that deceased was found dead in the office of the applicant and as per post- mortem report, she died due to firearm injury and on the information given by the applicant inquest was conducted and from its perusal, it reflects, applicant gave information that deceased died due to electrocution and therefore, applicant gave wrong information about the death of the deceased and this fact indicates his guilt.

13. They further submit that however, applicant is in jail for last more than a year and till date trial of the case could not be concluded but considering the heavy docket of the court concerned merely on this ground, it is not proper to release the applicant on bail specially considering the fact that applicant is facing trial for offence under Section 302 I.P.C.

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

15. Initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 120-B IPC and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act but during investigation, when it was found it does not appear to be a case of dowry death then case was converted under Section 302 I.P.C.

16. Record also suggests that deceased died due to firearm injury in the office of the applicant and inquest was conducted on his information and from the inquest report, which has been annexed alongwith the supplementary affidavit, it reflects applicant informed the police that deceased died due to electrocution and therefore, it appears applicant gave wrong information with regard to the death of the deceased. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant in this regard does not appear to be convincing.

17. Further, however, in the present matter applicant is in jail since October, 2023 i.e. for last more than a year and till date trial of the case could not be concluded but it is a case under Section 302 I.P.C. in which minimum punishment is life imprisonment.

18. Further, this Court finds merit in the submission advanced by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant that considering the heavy docket of the court concerned merely on the basis of incarceration of applicant of more than a year it is not proper to release the applicant on bail in the present matter.

19. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances discussed above, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

20. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application stands dismissed at this stage.

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. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Rahul Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Sri Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.857 of 2023, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad, during pendency of the trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 26.10.2023 against applicant, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 120-B IPC and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act and according to the FIR on 24.02.2023, applicant enticed away the sister of the informant and thereafter, he however performed marriage with her but after marriage, he started making demand of Rs.5,00,000/- and due to non-fulfillment of his demand, he started torturing her and in the night of 24/25.10.2023 committed her murder by using his licensee pistol.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 120-B IPC and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act but when it was found actually it is not a case of dowry death then case was converted under Section 302 I.P.C.

6. He further submits that actually deceased Mamta was not the wife of the applicant but she just worked in the office of the applicant and however, she died due to firearm injury in his office but when applicant arrived at his office and found that she was lying dead then he was under the impression that she died due to electrocution and therefore, he informed the police about this fact.

7. He further submits that on his information inquest was conducted and considering the fact of the case, it cannot be said that applicant gave wrong information about the death of the deceased.

8. He further submits that except the fact that deceased died in the office of the applicant through firearm, there is no other evidence against him on record.

9. He further submits that as per prosecution, applicant committed the murder of the deceased through his licensee pistol but from the report of the FSL, which has been annexed by learned A.G.A. alongwith compliance affidavit, it reflects, the pistol of the applicant could not match with the cartridges, which were found at the place of incident and this fact again suggest that actually applicant did not commit the murder of the deceased.

10. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 27.10.2023 i.e. for last more than a year.

11. He further submits that however, applicant is in jail for last more than a year but till date, only one prosecution witness could be examined.

12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that deceased was found dead in the office of the applicant and as per post- mortem report, she died due to firearm injury and on the information given by the applicant inquest was conducted and from its perusal, it reflects, applicant gave information that deceased died due to electrocution and therefore, applicant gave wrong information about the death of the deceased and this fact indicates his guilt.

13. They further submit that however, applicant is in jail for last more than a year and till date trial of the case could not be concluded but considering the heavy docket of the court concerned merely on this ground, it is not proper to release the applicant on bail specially considering the fact that applicant is facing trial for offence under Section 302 I.P.C.

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

15. Initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 120-B IPC and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act but during investigation, when it was found it does not appear to be a case of dowry death then case was converted under Section 302 I.P.C.

16. Record also suggests that deceased died due to firearm injury in the office of the applicant and inquest was conducted on his information and from the inquest report, which has been annexed alongwith the supplementary affidavit, it reflects applicant informed the police that deceased died due to electrocution and therefore, it appears applicant gave wrong information with regard to the death of the deceased. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant in this regard does not appear to be convincing.

17. Further, however, in the present matter applicant is in jail since October, 2023 i.e. for last more than a year and till date trial of the case could not be concluded but it is a case under Section 302 I.P.C. in which minimum punishment is life imprisonment.

18. Further, this Court finds merit in the submission advanced by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant that considering the heavy docket of the court concerned merely on the basis of incarceration of applicant of more than a year it is not proper to release the applicant on bail in the present matter.

19. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances discussed above, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

20. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application stands dismissed at this stage.

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. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad