State of U.P v. Party

2. Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey and Ms. Roshani Dwivedi, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. Sri Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for the first informant is not present even when the matter is taken in the revised list.

3. This is fourth bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed for non prosecution by this Court vide order dated

03.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23554 of 2020. The second bail application of the applicant was dismissed for non prosecution by this Court vide order dated 19.01.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33162 of 2023. The third bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.02.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5135 of 2024.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:- (i) The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. (ii) The trial in the matter is going on in which all the witnesses of fact being four in number have been examined. (iii) The allegation regarding demand of dowry by the applicant and co- accused persons is false and incorrect in as much as no previous complaint whatsoever was made by the deceased or by her family members to any authorities earlier. (iv) The statement of P.W.-3 Jitendra Pal goes to show that he has stated that 2 BAIL No. 4123 of 2025 in the cremation of the deceased the accused persons had also participated and thus the conduct of the accused persons including the applicant is aboveboard. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the said part of the statement is which is at page 148 of the paper-book. (v) P.W.-2 Lal Bahadur Patel has stated that his ticket for reaching to the place of occurrence was purchased by Brijesh the brother of the applicant and thus the same would also show that the even the family members of the applicant were co-operative with the family members of the deceased and there was no ill-will between them. (vi) The deceased was not found to have received any bodily injury and the cause of death was opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem drowning which could be an accident or a suicide also. (vii) The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 28 and is in jail since 07.03.2020.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted as under:- (i) The first and second bail applications of the applicant were dismissed for non prosecution by this Court but the third bail application of the applicant was rejected by an order on merits in detail vide order dated 23.02.2024. (ii) The deceased died within seven years of marriage. There is an allegation of demand of dowry. (iii) The trial is under progress as would be evident from the fact that four witnesses have been examined and as such there is no inordinate delay in trial. (iv) The appreciation of statement of witnesses is for the trial court to do at the appropriate stage and if this Court gives a finding upon the same may have an adverse effect in the trial. There is no new & fresh ground in the present bail application.

6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is fourth bail application of the applicant. The first and second bail applications of the applicant were dismissed for non prosecution by this Court. The third bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.02.2024, the same reads as under:- "1. Heard Sri Om Prakash Kannaujia, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record. 3 BAIL No. 4123 of 2025

2. This is third bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed for non prosecution by this Court vide order dated 03.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23554 of 2020 (Dinesh Patel vs. State of U.P.). The second bail application of the applicant was dismissed for non prosecution by this Court vide order dated

19.01.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33162 of 2023 (Dinesh Patel vs. State of U.P.).

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Dinesh Patel, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 0023 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Rampur, District Jaunpur.

4. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 04.03.2020 by Kamlawati Devi against the applicant and two other persons alleging therein that the marriage of Renu her daughter was solemnized on 21.11.2017 with the applicant. There was demand of Rs. 05 lakhs as dowry from her daughter which used to be told by her repeated times through phone. She used to be tortured because of the same. The accused persons have murdered her daughter and thrown her in well. Her body was recovered from well.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the deceased committed suicide and died as she was of a weak mental status and thus jumped into the well, paragraph 33 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court to buttress the said argument. It is argued that the implication of the applicant in the present case is without any credible evidence. General & omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant and other co- accused persons. It is argued that the investigation has concluded and the two other co-accused namely Sarita and Kavita have been exonerated by the police whereas charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant only, paragraph 19 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is submitted that cognizance has been taken by the court, paragraph 20 of the affidavit has been placed for the same. It is argued that looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the implication of the applicant is false and the deceased has committed suicide. It is further argued that trial in the present matter has started in which statement of Smt. Kamlawati Devi has been recorded as P.W-1, paragraph 39 of the affidavit has been placed for the same. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 35 and is in jail since

07.03.2020.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. It is argued that the deceased died in her matrimonial house after 21/2 years of marriage. The death is unnatural. It is further argued that investigation in the matter has concluded and charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant. It is argued that there is no convincing explanation given by the applicant regarding the death of his wife in her matrimonial house. It is argued that the bail application thus deserves to be rejected. 4 BAIL No. 4123 of 2025

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The marriage of the applicant with the deceased was solemnized about 21/2 years prior to her death. The applicant is named in the first information report. There is an allegation of demand of Rs. 05 lakhs as dowry by him and other co-accused persons. Two other co-accused have although been exonerated during investigation but charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant on which trial court has taken cognizance. The deceased died while living in her matrimonial house. The cause of death has been opined by the doctor as asphyxia as a result of antemortem drowning. There is no convincing reason disclosed by the applicant which would discharge him from the burden of death of his wife. The trial is under progress in which one prosecution witness has been examined. The release of the applicant at this stage may have an adverse effect in the trial. Even on merits the case does not appear to be a fit case for bail.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected."

7. The trial is under progress in which four witnesses have been examined. The appreciation of statements of witnesses and giving a finding regarding some of the version given by them would not be proper in the bail application as the same may have an adverse effect in the trial. The same is for the trial court to do at the appropriate stage. In so far as the postmortem examination and other argument regarding demand of dowry are concerned, the same have already been considered while rejecting the third bail application of the applicant on merits. The trial is under progress in which four witnesses have been examined and as such there does not appear to be any lethargy in the trial. No ground for bail exists.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

9. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. October 8, 2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey and Ms. Roshani Dwivedi, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. Sri Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for the first informant is not present even when the matter is taken in the revised list.

3. This is fourth bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed for non prosecution by this Court vide order dated

03.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23554 of 2020. The second bail application of the applicant was dismissed for non prosecution by this Court vide order dated 19.01.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33162 of 2023. The third bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.02.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5135 of 2024.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:- (i) The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. (ii) The trial in the matter is going on in which all the witnesses of fact being four in number have been examined. (iii) The allegation regarding demand of dowry by the applicant and co- accused persons is false and incorrect in as much as no previous complaint whatsoever was made by the deceased or by her family members to any authorities earlier. (iv) The statement of P.W.-3 Jitendra Pal goes to show that he has stated that 2 BAIL No. 4123 of 2025 in the cremation of the deceased the accused persons had also participated and thus the conduct of the accused persons including the applicant is aboveboard. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the said part of the statement is which is at page 148 of the paper-book. (v) P.W.-2 Lal Bahadur Patel has stated that his ticket for reaching to the place of occurrence was purchased by Brijesh the brother of the applicant and thus the same would also show that the even the family members of the applicant were co-operative with the family members of the deceased and there was no ill-will between them. (vi) The deceased was not found to have received any bodily injury and the cause of death was opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem drowning which could be an accident or a suicide also. (vii) The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 28 and is in jail since 07.03.2020.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted as under:- (i) The first and second bail applications of the applicant were dismissed for non prosecution by this Court but the third bail application of the applicant was rejected by an order on merits in detail vide order dated 23.02.2024. (ii) The deceased died within seven years of marriage. There is an allegation of demand of dowry. (iii) The trial is under progress as would be evident from the fact that four witnesses have been examined and as such there is no inordinate delay in trial. (iv) The appreciation of statement of witnesses is for the trial court to do at the appropriate stage and if this Court gives a finding upon the same may have an adverse effect in the trial. There is no new & fresh ground in the present bail application.

6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is fourth bail application of the applicant. The first and second bail applications of the applicant were dismissed for non prosecution by this Court. The third bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.02.2024, the same reads as under:- "1. Heard Sri Om Prakash Kannaujia, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record. 3 BAIL No. 4123 of 2025

2. This is third bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed for non prosecution by this Court vide order dated 03.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23554 of 2020 (Dinesh Patel vs. State of U.P.). The second bail application of the applicant was dismissed for non prosecution by this Court vide order dated

19.01.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33162 of 2023 (Dinesh Patel vs. State of U.P.).

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Dinesh Patel, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 0023 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Rampur, District Jaunpur.

4. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 04.03.2020 by Kamlawati Devi against the applicant and two other persons alleging therein that the marriage of Renu her daughter was solemnized on 21.11.2017 with the applicant. There was demand of Rs. 05 lakhs as dowry from her daughter which used to be told by her repeated times through phone. She used to be tortured because of the same. The accused persons have murdered her daughter and thrown her in well. Her body was recovered from well.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the deceased committed suicide and died as she was of a weak mental status and thus jumped into the well, paragraph 33 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court to buttress the said argument. It is argued that the implication of the applicant in the present case is without any credible evidence. General & omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant and other co- accused persons. It is argued that the investigation has concluded and the two other co-accused namely Sarita and Kavita have been exonerated by the police whereas charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant only, paragraph 19 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is submitted that cognizance has been taken by the court, paragraph 20 of the affidavit has been placed for the same. It is argued that looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the implication of the applicant is false and the deceased has committed suicide. It is further argued that trial in the present matter has started in which statement of Smt. Kamlawati Devi has been recorded as P.W-1, paragraph 39 of the affidavit has been placed for the same. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 35 and is in jail since

07.03.2020.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. It is argued that the deceased died in her matrimonial house after 21/2 years of marriage. The death is unnatural. It is further argued that investigation in the matter has concluded and charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant. It is argued that there is no convincing explanation given by the applicant regarding the death of his wife in her matrimonial house. It is argued that the bail application thus deserves to be rejected. 4 BAIL No. 4123 of 2025

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The marriage of the applicant with the deceased was solemnized about 21/2 years prior to her death. The applicant is named in the first information report. There is an allegation of demand of Rs. 05 lakhs as dowry by him and other co-accused persons. Two other co-accused have although been exonerated during investigation but charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant on which trial court has taken cognizance. The deceased died while living in her matrimonial house. The cause of death has been opined by the doctor as asphyxia as a result of antemortem drowning. There is no convincing reason disclosed by the applicant which would discharge him from the burden of death of his wife. The trial is under progress in which one prosecution witness has been examined. The release of the applicant at this stage may have an adverse effect in the trial. Even on merits the case does not appear to be a fit case for bail.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected."

7. The trial is under progress in which four witnesses have been examined. The appreciation of statements of witnesses and giving a finding regarding some of the version given by them would not be proper in the bail application as the same may have an adverse effect in the trial. The same is for the trial court to do at the appropriate stage. In so far as the postmortem examination and other argument regarding demand of dowry are concerned, the same have already been considered while rejecting the third bail application of the applicant on merits. The trial is under progress in which four witnesses have been examined and as such there does not appear to be any lethargy in the trial. No ground for bail exists.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

9. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. October 8, 2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad