State of U.P v. Prabhat Singh

" Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Shams Uz Zaman, the learned counsel for first informant. Perused the record. This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant Prabhat Singh, Seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 185 of 2021, under sections 498A, 304B IPC and under sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Auraiya, District- Auraiya, during pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No. 940 of 2021 (State Vs. Prabhat Singh @ Gopak and others) under sections 498A, 304 B, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Auriya, District- Auriya. At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant contends that co- accused Kavita Singh, mother-in-law of deceased has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 8.4.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19658 of 2021 (Kavita Singh Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein under: "Heard Mr. V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for first informant. This application for bail has been filed by applicant Kavita Singh, seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 185 of 2021 under sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Auraiya, District Auraiya during the pendency of trial. Perused the record. Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit to which rejoinder affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for first informant has also filed counter affidavit to which rejoinder affidavit has been filed. It transpires from record that marriage of Jyoti was solemnized with Prabhat Singh the son of applicant on 4.12.2017. However, just after expiry of a period of three years and six months from the date of marriage of the son of applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 6.7.2021, in which the daughter-in-law of applicant died as she sustained gun shot injuries. The information regarding aforesaid incident was not given by applicant or any of her family members at the concerned Police Station but by the neighbour of applicant. Subsequent to above, Arvind Singh father of deceased lodged an F.I.R. dated 8.3.2021, which was registered as Case Crime No. 185 of 2021 under sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Auraiya, District Auraiya. In the aforesaid F.I.R. three persons namely, Prabhat Singh @ Gopak(husband), Kavita Singh (mohter-in-law), Sudheer Singh Kushwaha (father-in-law) of deceased have been nominated as named accused. The gravamen of the allegations made in aforesaid F.I.R. is to the effect that marriage of Jyoti daughter of first informant was solemnized with Prabhat on 4.12.2017. However, the in-laws of the daughter of first informant caused physical and mental cruelty upon the daughter of first informant for demand of additional dowry. The F.I.R. further states that named accused used to say that they have suffered consistent loss in business and there is extreme necessity of money. In furtherance of above, first informant sold his agricultural land for Rs. 23 lakhs. However irrespective of above, repeated threats were extended by son-in-law and other in-laws of daughter of first informant. Thereafter the jewelry of daughter of first informant was handed over to named accused, which was kept in security towards loan of Rs. 2,76,000/- However, irrespective of above, there was no change in the conduct of named accused towards daughter of first informant. Ultimately, the daughter of first informant was put to death. Subsequent to aforesaid F.I.R. Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of aforementioned Case Crime Number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. The inquest (panchayatnama) of the body of deceased was conducted on 8.3.2021. In the opinion of witnesses of inquest (panch witness), the nature of death of deceased was homicidal. Thereafter, the post-mortem of the body of deceased was conducted. In the opinion of autopsy surgeon, the cause of death of deceased was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem fire-arm injury. The autopsy surgeon found following ante-mortem injury on the body of deceased: "Wound of entry present on Rt. Forearm size of wound is 0.80.8 cm present 02 cm below from Rt. ear lole, around wound blcaking and fattousing present margin are (edges are) invested and lacerated,... in shape of wound exit is 02x02cm with underlying bone fracture two fragments of small size recovered from diseased skull" During course of Investigation, Investigating Officer examined first informant and other witnesses namely, Arvind Singh, Smt. Sunita Tomar, Smt. Renu, Sri Jitendra Tomar, Smt. Uma Devi, Smt. Deepika and Smt. Parul under section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, which according to him is adverse to named accused he came to the conclusion that complicity of named accused in the crime in question is duly established. He, accordingly submitted charge sheet dated 7.5.2021, whereby all the three named accused have been charge sheeted under sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. Mr. V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel for applicant contends that applicant is mother-in-law of deceased. Applicant is a middle aged women aged about 45 years. He next contends that applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in above mentioned case crime number. Allegations made in F.I.R. with regard to demand of dowry and commission of physical and mental cruelty upon deceased are false and concocted. The marriage of son of applicant was solemnized with deceased on 4.12.2017. However, since then up to date of her death, there is nothing on record to show that any complaint was filed with regard to alleged demand of dowry or commission of physical or mental cruelty upon deceased. Learned Senior Counsel then invited attention of Court to the post mortem report of deceased and on the basis of same, he submits that deceased has died on account of gun shot injuries. Reffering to the material on record (CCTV Footage) he submits that applicant cannot be held to be the author of the fatal gun shot injury. No recovery has been made from applicant. There is no eye witness of the occurrence either. Learned Senior Counsel for applicant has then invited attention of Court to the provisions contained in proviso to section 437 Cr.P.C. and on basis thereof he contends that since applicant is a lady, her liberty is liable to be protected. It is next contended that applicant is a woman of clean antecedents inasmuch as she has no criminal history to her credit except to present one. Applicant is in jail since 9.3.2021. As such, she has undergone more than one year of incarceration. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and Mr. Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for first informant have opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that applicant is mother-in-law of deceased. Specific allegations with regard to demand of dowry and commission of physical and mental cruelty upon daughter-in- law of deceased on account of non fulfilment of additional demand of dowry have been made jointly against applicant and two others. The criminality committed by named accused are interlinked and intervened. Occurrence has taken place in the house of applicant and within seven years of marriage. As such, by virtue of provisions contained inSections 106 and 113B of Evidence Act, applicant is under burden to dislodge the manner of occurrence and also prove her innocence. However, up to this stage, the applicant has failed to discharge her aforesaid burden. She therefore does not deserve any indulgence of this Court. However, he could not dispute the factual and legal submissions urged by learned Senior Counsel for applicant. In rejoinder, Mr. V.P. Srivastava, the learned Senior Counsel for applicant has rejoinded the submission earlier urged by him. He has laid much emphasis upon Section 437 Cr.P.C. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State, leawrned counsel for first informant and upon perusal of material brought on record as well as the complicity of applicant and accusationd made but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Kavita Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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 SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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. (ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. (iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. (iv) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above. " The learned counsel for applicant submits that thought the applicant is husband of deceased, a named and charge-sheeted accused, yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. The case of present applicant is similar and identical to bailed out co-accused. Except for the fact that applicant is husband of deceased, there is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which, case of present applicant could be so distinguished from aforesaid co-accused so as to deny bail to present applicant. He, therefore, submits that applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 9.3.2021. As such, he has undergone more than three years and nine months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicant, as such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by prosecution against applicants stands crystalized. However, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during pendency of trial. It is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. The trial of applicant has already commenced. Up tho this stage, seven prosecution witnesses have already deposed before Court below. In the charge sheet as many as 20 prosecution witnesses have been nominated. There is no likelihood of the trial getting concluded in near future. On the aforesaid premise, he submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, the learned A.G.A and the learned counsel for first informant have opposed the prayer for bail.They submit that applicant is husband of the deceased. The deceased has died within seven years of her marriage at her marital home. Cause of death is gun shot injuries. On the above consepectus, they submit that whether the death of the deceased is homicidal or suicidal cannot be concluded only when the entire evidence is recorded before Court below. At this stage, no such circumstance has emerged so as to enlarge the applicant on bail. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence as well as complicity of applicant, accusation made coupled with the fact that objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present repeat application for bail could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant, therefore irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of the present repeat application for bail, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any new good or sufficient ground so as to enlarge the applicant on bail. In view of above, the repeat application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 16.10.2024 "

5. Learned counsel for applicant contends that though applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused and his first bail application has already been rejected by this Court, however, in view of the facts as have now emerged on record, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that co-accused Sudhir Singh i.e. father of applicant, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1600 of 2024 (Sudhir Singh Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the order dated 19.12.2024 is reproduced herein-below:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Mukesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for informant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. The applicant was enlarged on interim bail for the period of six months by this Court vide order dated 31.5.2024. Learned counsel for the informant informs that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined. Prosecution does not wishes to produce any other witness before the trial court hence applicant should not be enlarged on bail. In view of the fact that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined as per statement of counsel for the informant, there is no possibility of tampering with prosecution witnesses. Interim bail granted to the applicant vide order dated 31.5.2024 passed by this Court is confirmed. The applicant shall remain on bail on same terms and conditions as given in earlier interim order dated 31.5.2024 during prendency of trial. Bail application is allowed. The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months as per Section 309 Cr.P.C. The Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned within 10 days. Order Date :- 19.12.2024."

6. It is next contended by the learned counsel for applicant that upto this stage all the prosecution witnesses of fact have deposed before court below. Apart from above, some of the formal witnesses have also deposed before court below. The details of same are as under: i. P.W.-1, Arvind Singh (First Informant/ Father of deceased) ii. P.W.-2, Sunita Tomar (Mother of the deceased). iii. P.W.-3, Constable Anuj Kumar (Scribe of F.I.R.) iv. P.W.-4, Jitendra Singh Tomar (Uncle of the deceased) v. P.W.-5, Dr. Amar Prithvi Pal (he conducted post-mortem) vi. P.W-6, Pawan Kumar (Tehsildar) (witness of inquest) vii. P.W.-7, Constable Surendra Nath Yadav( Investigating Officer) viii. P.W.-8 S. I. Surendra Chandra (He dectated the F.I.R.)

7. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that prosecution witnesses of fact have not supported the F.I.R. to the extent that no demand of dowry was ever made by applicant. He therefore submits that in view of above, no offence under Section 304B I.P.C. can be said to be made out against applicant.

8. Learned counsel for applicant has then invited the attention of Court to the F.S.L. report dated 13.05.2022. Photocopy of which has been placed by the learned A.G.A. before this Court and also accepted on record. With reference to the aforesaid F.S.L. report, the learned counsel for applicant submits that the revolver from which the deceased committed suicide belongs to applicant. However, at the time of recovery of the aforesaid revolver, the same was loaded and there were five live cartridges inside. The said revolver was recovered from the bed-side of the deceased, which fact is clearly evident from the inquest report, copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 15.04.2025. It is thus contended by the learned counsel for applicant that present case is a case of suicidal death and not homicidal. On the above premise, he, therefore, contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

9. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 09.03.2021. As such, he has undergone more than two years and two months of incarceration. The police report (charge-sheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against accused/applicant, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, upto this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. To buttress his submission, he has relied upon the judgement of Supreme Court inSumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373. It is then contended by the learned counsel for applicant that apart from above, all the prosecution witnesses o f fact have alrady deposed before court below. It is thus contended by the learned counsel for applicant that since the prosecution witnesses of fact have already deposed before court below, therefore, in case the accused/applicant is enlarged on bail then in that eventuality it cannot be said that applicant shall either shall hamper the course of trial or terrorize the witnesses. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for accused/applicant that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the accused/applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

10. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel representing first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that since applicant is the husband of deceased, a named and charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. It is an undisputed fact that deceased died on account of gun shot injury sustained by her. The fire-arm by which the deceased sustained gun shot injury belongs to the applicant. No explanation has come forward from the applicant regarding aforementioned incriminating circumstance. Simply on the basis of the recital occurring in the inquest report to the effect that the deceased appears to have committed suicide, it cannot be presumed that applicant is innocent. The innocence of the applicant can be concluded only after evidence has been led by the parties during course of trial. Furthermore, the deceased was a young lady aged about 25 years, who has died an unnatural death. On the above premise, they, therefore, submit that no case for grant of bail to accused/applicant is made out. As such, present repeat application for bail is liable to be rejected by this Court. However, they could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, the learned counsel representing first informant, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant and coupled with the fact that though the applicant is husband of deceased, a named and charge sheeted accused and facing trial before court below, the first bail application of applicant has already been rejected by this Court yet this Court finds that subsequent to the order dated 16.10.2024 passed by this Court rejecting the first bail application of applicant, the father of applicant namely Sudhir Singh, who was seen carrying the firearm as per CCTV Footage, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2024, the weapon i.e. revolver by which the deceased committed suicide belongs to applicant, however, the said firearm was recovered from a place near to the dead body of the deceased, the same was loaded and was having five live cartridges inside, upto this stage eight prosecution witnesses have deposed before court below, as such all the prosecution witnesses of fact i.e. P.W.-1 to P.W.-4 have deposed before court below however the prosecution witnesses of fact have not allegd in their depositions before court below that any demand of dowry was made by applicant, as such prima-facie the death of the deceased does not appear to be a dowry death, the police report (charge-sheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against accused/applicant, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, yet inspite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such incriminating circumstance from record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the prosecution witnesses of fact have already deposed before court below but they have not supported the F.I.R. inasmuch as they have denied the fact that any demand of dowry was ever made and cruelty was committed upon the deceased by accused/applicant, therefore, in case the applicant is enlarged on bail then in that eventuality it cannot be said that applicant shall either terrorize the witnesses or shall hamper the course of trial, the judgement of Apex Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, co-accused has already been enlarged on bail, except for the fact that the deceased sustained gun shot injury from the weapon belonging to applicant no other distinguishing feature could be pointed out by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant so as to distinguish the case of present applicant from bailed out co- accused and deny him bail, therefore irrespective of the objections raised by learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant in opposition to present repeat application for bail but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

12. Accordingly, present repeat application for bail is allowed.

13. Let the applicant-Prabhat Singh @ Gopak involved in aforesaid case crime number 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence. (ii) 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) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities. (iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

14. 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 of applicant and send him to prison. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 YK YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

" Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Shams Uz Zaman, the learned counsel for first informant. Perused the record. This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant Prabhat Singh, Seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 185 of 2021, under sections 498A, 304B IPC and under sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Auraiya, District- Auraiya, during pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No. 940 of 2021 (State Vs. Prabhat Singh @ Gopak and others) under sections 498A, 304 B, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Auriya, District- Auriya. At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant contends that co- accused Kavita Singh, mother-in-law of deceased has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 8.4.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19658 of 2021 (Kavita Singh Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein under: "Heard Mr. V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for first informant. This application for bail has been filed by applicant Kavita Singh, seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 185 of 2021 under sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Auraiya, District Auraiya during the pendency of trial. Perused the record. Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit to which rejoinder affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for first informant has also filed counter affidavit to which rejoinder affidavit has been filed. It transpires from record that marriage of Jyoti was solemnized with Prabhat Singh the son of applicant on 4.12.2017. However, just after expiry of a period of three years and six months from the date of marriage of the son of applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 6.7.2021, in which the daughter-in-law of applicant died as she sustained gun shot injuries. The information regarding aforesaid incident was not given by applicant or any of her family members at the concerned Police Station but by the neighbour of applicant. Subsequent to above, Arvind Singh father of deceased lodged an F.I.R. dated 8.3.2021, which was registered as Case Crime No. 185 of 2021 under sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Auraiya, District Auraiya. In the aforesaid F.I.R. three persons namely, Prabhat Singh @ Gopak(husband), Kavita Singh (mohter-in-law), Sudheer Singh Kushwaha (father-in-law) of deceased have been nominated as named accused. The gravamen of the allegations made in aforesaid F.I.R. is to the effect that marriage of Jyoti daughter of first informant was solemnized with Prabhat on 4.12.2017. However, the in-laws of the daughter of first informant caused physical and mental cruelty upon the daughter of first informant for demand of additional dowry. The F.I.R. further states that named accused used to say that they have suffered consistent loss in business and there is extreme necessity of money. In furtherance of above, first informant sold his agricultural land for Rs. 23 lakhs. However irrespective of above, repeated threats were extended by son-in-law and other in-laws of daughter of first informant. Thereafter the jewelry of daughter of first informant was handed over to named accused, which was kept in security towards loan of Rs. 2,76,000/- However, irrespective of above, there was no change in the conduct of named accused towards daughter of first informant. Ultimately, the daughter of first informant was put to death. Subsequent to aforesaid F.I.R. Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of aforementioned Case Crime Number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. The inquest (panchayatnama) of the body of deceased was conducted on 8.3.2021. In the opinion of witnesses of inquest (panch witness), the nature of death of deceased was homicidal. Thereafter, the post-mortem of the body of deceased was conducted. In the opinion of autopsy surgeon, the cause of death of deceased was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem fire-arm injury. The autopsy surgeon found following ante-mortem injury on the body of deceased: "Wound of entry present on Rt. Forearm size of wound is 0.80.8 cm present 02 cm below from Rt. ear lole, around wound blcaking and fattousing present margin are (edges are) invested and lacerated,... in shape of wound exit is 02x02cm with underlying bone fracture two fragments of small size recovered from diseased skull" During course of Investigation, Investigating Officer examined first informant and other witnesses namely, Arvind Singh, Smt. Sunita Tomar, Smt. Renu, Sri Jitendra Tomar, Smt. Uma Devi, Smt. Deepika and Smt. Parul under section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, which according to him is adverse to named accused he came to the conclusion that complicity of named accused in the crime in question is duly established. He, accordingly submitted charge sheet dated 7.5.2021, whereby all the three named accused have been charge sheeted under sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. Mr. V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel for applicant contends that applicant is mother-in-law of deceased. Applicant is a middle aged women aged about 45 years. He next contends that applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in above mentioned case crime number. Allegations made in F.I.R. with regard to demand of dowry and commission of physical and mental cruelty upon deceased are false and concocted. The marriage of son of applicant was solemnized with deceased on 4.12.2017. However, since then up to date of her death, there is nothing on record to show that any complaint was filed with regard to alleged demand of dowry or commission of physical or mental cruelty upon deceased. Learned Senior Counsel then invited attention of Court to the post mortem report of deceased and on the basis of same, he submits that deceased has died on account of gun shot injuries. Reffering to the material on record (CCTV Footage) he submits that applicant cannot be held to be the author of the fatal gun shot injury. No recovery has been made from applicant. There is no eye witness of the occurrence either. Learned Senior Counsel for applicant has then invited attention of Court to the provisions contained in proviso to section 437 Cr.P.C. and on basis thereof he contends that since applicant is a lady, her liberty is liable to be protected. It is next contended that applicant is a woman of clean antecedents inasmuch as she has no criminal history to her credit except to present one. Applicant is in jail since 9.3.2021. As such, she has undergone more than one year of incarceration. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and Mr. Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for first informant have opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that applicant is mother-in-law of deceased. Specific allegations with regard to demand of dowry and commission of physical and mental cruelty upon daughter-in- law of deceased on account of non fulfilment of additional demand of dowry have been made jointly against applicant and two others. The criminality committed by named accused are interlinked and intervened. Occurrence has taken place in the house of applicant and within seven years of marriage. As such, by virtue of provisions contained inSections 106 and 113B of Evidence Act, applicant is under burden to dislodge the manner of occurrence and also prove her innocence. However, up to this stage, the applicant has failed to discharge her aforesaid burden. She therefore does not deserve any indulgence of this Court. However, he could not dispute the factual and legal submissions urged by learned Senior Counsel for applicant. In rejoinder, Mr. V.P. Srivastava, the learned Senior Counsel for applicant has rejoinded the submission earlier urged by him. He has laid much emphasis upon Section 437 Cr.P.C. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State, leawrned counsel for first informant and upon perusal of material brought on record as well as the complicity of applicant and accusationd made but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Kavita Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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 SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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. (ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. (iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. (iv) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above. " The learned counsel for applicant submits that thought the applicant is husband of deceased, a named and charge-sheeted accused, yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. The case of present applicant is similar and identical to bailed out co-accused. Except for the fact that applicant is husband of deceased, there is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which, case of present applicant could be so distinguished from aforesaid co-accused so as to deny bail to present applicant. He, therefore, submits that applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 9.3.2021. As such, he has undergone more than three years and nine months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicant, as such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by prosecution against applicants stands crystalized. However, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during pendency of trial. It is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. The trial of applicant has already commenced. Up tho this stage, seven prosecution witnesses have already deposed before Court below. In the charge sheet as many as 20 prosecution witnesses have been nominated. There is no likelihood of the trial getting concluded in near future. On the aforesaid premise, he submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, the learned A.G.A and the learned counsel for first informant have opposed the prayer for bail.They submit that applicant is husband of the deceased. The deceased has died within seven years of her marriage at her marital home. Cause of death is gun shot injuries. On the above consepectus, they submit that whether the death of the deceased is homicidal or suicidal cannot be concluded only when the entire evidence is recorded before Court below. At this stage, no such circumstance has emerged so as to enlarge the applicant on bail. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence as well as complicity of applicant, accusation made coupled with the fact that objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present repeat application for bail could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant, therefore irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of the present repeat application for bail, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any new good or sufficient ground so as to enlarge the applicant on bail. In view of above, the repeat application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 16.10.2024 "

5. Learned counsel for applicant contends that though applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused and his first bail application has already been rejected by this Court, however, in view of the facts as have now emerged on record, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that co-accused Sudhir Singh i.e. father of applicant, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1600 of 2024 (Sudhir Singh Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the order dated 19.12.2024 is reproduced herein-below:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Mukesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for informant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. The applicant was enlarged on interim bail for the period of six months by this Court vide order dated 31.5.2024. Learned counsel for the informant informs that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined. Prosecution does not wishes to produce any other witness before the trial court hence applicant should not be enlarged on bail. In view of the fact that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined as per statement of counsel for the informant, there is no possibility of tampering with prosecution witnesses. Interim bail granted to the applicant vide order dated 31.5.2024 passed by this Court is confirmed. The applicant shall remain on bail on same terms and conditions as given in earlier interim order dated 31.5.2024 during prendency of trial. Bail application is allowed. The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months as per Section 309 Cr.P.C. The Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned within 10 days. Order Date :- 19.12.2024."

6. It is next contended by the learned counsel for applicant that upto this stage all the prosecution witnesses of fact have deposed before court below. Apart from above, some of the formal witnesses have also deposed before court below. The details of same are as under: i. P.W.-1, Arvind Singh (First Informant/ Father of deceased) ii. P.W.-2, Sunita Tomar (Mother of the deceased). iii. P.W.-3, Constable Anuj Kumar (Scribe of F.I.R.) iv. P.W.-4, Jitendra Singh Tomar (Uncle of the deceased) v. P.W.-5, Dr. Amar Prithvi Pal (he conducted post-mortem) vi. P.W-6, Pawan Kumar (Tehsildar) (witness of inquest) vii. P.W.-7, Constable Surendra Nath Yadav( Investigating Officer) viii. P.W.-8 S. I. Surendra Chandra (He dectated the F.I.R.)

7. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that prosecution witnesses of fact have not supported the F.I.R. to the extent that no demand of dowry was ever made by applicant. He therefore submits that in view of above, no offence under Section 304B I.P.C. can be said to be made out against applicant.

8. Learned counsel for applicant has then invited the attention of Court to the F.S.L. report dated 13.05.2022. Photocopy of which has been placed by the learned A.G.A. before this Court and also accepted on record. With reference to the aforesaid F.S.L. report, the learned counsel for applicant submits that the revolver from which the deceased committed suicide belongs to applicant. However, at the time of recovery of the aforesaid revolver, the same was loaded and there were five live cartridges inside. The said revolver was recovered from the bed-side of the deceased, which fact is clearly evident from the inquest report, copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 15.04.2025. It is thus contended by the learned counsel for applicant that present case is a case of suicidal death and not homicidal. On the above premise, he, therefore, contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

9. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 09.03.2021. As such, he has undergone more than two years and two months of incarceration. The police report (charge-sheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against accused/applicant, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, upto this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. To buttress his submission, he has relied upon the judgement of Supreme Court inSumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373. It is then contended by the learned counsel for applicant that apart from above, all the prosecution witnesses o f fact have alrady deposed before court below. It is thus contended by the learned counsel for applicant that since the prosecution witnesses of fact have already deposed before court below, therefore, in case the accused/applicant is enlarged on bail then in that eventuality it cannot be said that applicant shall either shall hamper the course of trial or terrorize the witnesses. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for accused/applicant that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the accused/applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

10. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel representing first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that since applicant is the husband of deceased, a named and charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. It is an undisputed fact that deceased died on account of gun shot injury sustained by her. The fire-arm by which the deceased sustained gun shot injury belongs to the applicant. No explanation has come forward from the applicant regarding aforementioned incriminating circumstance. Simply on the basis of the recital occurring in the inquest report to the effect that the deceased appears to have committed suicide, it cannot be presumed that applicant is innocent. The innocence of the applicant can be concluded only after evidence has been led by the parties during course of trial. Furthermore, the deceased was a young lady aged about 25 years, who has died an unnatural death. On the above premise, they, therefore, submit that no case for grant of bail to accused/applicant is made out. As such, present repeat application for bail is liable to be rejected by this Court. However, they could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, the learned counsel representing first informant, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant and coupled with the fact that though the applicant is husband of deceased, a named and charge sheeted accused and facing trial before court below, the first bail application of applicant has already been rejected by this Court yet this Court finds that subsequent to the order dated 16.10.2024 passed by this Court rejecting the first bail application of applicant, the father of applicant namely Sudhir Singh, who was seen carrying the firearm as per CCTV Footage, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2024, the weapon i.e. revolver by which the deceased committed suicide belongs to applicant, however, the said firearm was recovered from a place near to the dead body of the deceased, the same was loaded and was having five live cartridges inside, upto this stage eight prosecution witnesses have deposed before court below, as such all the prosecution witnesses of fact i.e. P.W.-1 to P.W.-4 have deposed before court below however the prosecution witnesses of fact have not allegd in their depositions before court below that any demand of dowry was made by applicant, as such prima-facie the death of the deceased does not appear to be a dowry death, the police report (charge-sheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against accused/applicant, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, yet inspite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such incriminating circumstance from record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the prosecution witnesses of fact have already deposed before court below but they have not supported the F.I.R. inasmuch as they have denied the fact that any demand of dowry was ever made and cruelty was committed upon the deceased by accused/applicant, therefore, in case the applicant is enlarged on bail then in that eventuality it cannot be said that applicant shall either terrorize the witnesses or shall hamper the course of trial, the judgement of Apex Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, co-accused has already been enlarged on bail, except for the fact that the deceased sustained gun shot injury from the weapon belonging to applicant no other distinguishing feature could be pointed out by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant so as to distinguish the case of present applicant from bailed out co- accused and deny him bail, therefore irrespective of the objections raised by learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant in opposition to present repeat application for bail but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

12. Accordingly, present repeat application for bail is allowed.

13. Let the applicant-Prabhat Singh @ Gopak involved in aforesaid case crime number 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence. (ii) 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) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities. (iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

14. 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 of applicant and send him to prison. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 YK YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad