Deen Dayal v. State of U.P

Heard Sri Vipin Gangwar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shyam Dhar Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.796 of 2024, under Sections 85, 115(2), 64(1), 351(3) B.N.S. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Baheri, District- Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no date and time of incident mentioned in the FIR. The applicant is the brother-in-law (Jeth) of the victim. It is a clear cut case of false implication. The applicant has simply been made an accused on account of his relationship with the husband of the victim, who happens to be his brother. There is no medical corroboration of the incident.

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.10.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

The Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs The State of Bihar, reported in 2022 (6) SCC 599 has categorically stated that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.

In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

Let the applicant- Deen Dayal, 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. (ii) 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./351 B.N.S.S. 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.

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

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 :- 3.3.2025/ Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) VIKAS VERMA VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad