High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Chandra Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dwijendra Prasad, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S has been filed by the applicant-Ajay, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.703 of 2024, under Sections 80 (2), 85, 61(2) BNS and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

4. The vakalatnama filed by Sri Dwijendra Prasad, learned counsel for the first informant is not on record.

5. Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record by the next date and make a note in the order sheet regarding the same.

6. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 26.9.2024 by Vijay Pal Singh against the applicant and three other persons with the allegation that the marriage of his daughter Neeraj was solemnized around five years ago with Ajun Singh in which he had given gifts and four wheeler. After some days of marriage, there was a demand of Rs. 2 lakh by the accused persons and there was a threat that if they do not fulfill the demand, his daughter would be murdered. On 25.9.2024 at about 9.30 p.m. all the accused persons together murdered his daughter with a sharp-edged weapon. His daughter was having a pregnancy of seven months and the child has also died in the wound. On 26.9.2024 at about 1 p.m. the father-in-law informed him on telephone that his daughter has been murdered by some miscreants after which he reached there and could sense that no miscreant has murdered his daughter but the accused persons have murdered her.

7. The postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted in which the doctor found two incised wounds and one linear abrasion. Even a fetus was found which was of male sex. The cause of death was opined has hemorrhagic shock due to ante- mortem injury consequent upon stabbed wound no.1 and 2 as mentioned in the ante-mortem injury.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is the devar of the deceased Smt. Neeraj. While placing annexure no.7 of the paper book it is submitted that Ajun Singh, the husband of the deceased also received injuries which was medically examined on 26.9.2024 wherein he was found to have received a lacerated wound and a multiple incised wound. Although the doctors opined the injuries to be simple in nature but they are grievous in nature. It is submitted that the present case is a case in which miscreants had attacked the house in which the deceased and her husband were assaulted after which she received injuries and died and her husband also received injuries. It is further submitted that co-accused Vipati Ram has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.2.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2455 of 2025 and co-accused Pooja Devi, the sister-in-law/jethani of the deceased has also been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.1.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2411 of 2025, copies of the said orders have been produced by learned counsel for the applicant which are taken on record. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 20 of the affidavit and is in jail since 27.9.2024.

9. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that in so far as the applicant is concerned, he and the husband of the deceased were in active participation in the matter. It is submitted that the deceased was stabbed mercilessly and has died because of the said injuries. She was having pregnancy of seven months and child in her womb also died. In so far as injuries of Ajun Singh, the husband of the deceased are concerned, the same have been opined to be simple in nature and as such possibility of the same being self inflicted just in order to give the case a different colour cannot be ruled out. The applicant and Ajun Singh were arrested and on the pointing out of Ajun Singh a knife used in the present incident was recovered. In so far as co-accused who have been granted bail are concerned, one of them is the father-in-law and the other is the sister-in-law/jethani and as such their cases are distinguishable with that of the applicant. The applicant is named in the FIR. There are serious allegations against him. The gravity of the offence cannot be left out. The deceased has been murdered mercilessly with a sharp-edged weapon and she has received incised wounds. They have placed before the Court a judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another in SLP (Crl.) No.15156 of 2024, para 15 to buttress their arguments, as such bail application of the applicant be rejected.

10. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the devar of the deceased but the manner of assault in the present matter is very gruesome. The deceased died due to stabbed wounds. The fetus of about seven months also died in her womb. The injuries received by her husband were opined to be simple in nature by the doctor examining it. Co-accused who have been granted bail were the father-in-law and sister-in-law, as such their cases are distinguishable with the case of the applicant.

11. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 Gaurav Kuls (Samit Gopal, J.) GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Chandra Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dwijendra Prasad, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S has been filed by the applicant-Ajay, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.703 of 2024, under Sections 80 (2), 85, 61(2) BNS and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

4. The vakalatnama filed by Sri Dwijendra Prasad, learned counsel for the first informant is not on record.

5. Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record by the next date and make a note in the order sheet regarding the same.

6. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 26.9.2024 by Vijay Pal Singh against the applicant and three other persons with the allegation that the marriage of his daughter Neeraj was solemnized around five years ago with Ajun Singh in which he had given gifts and four wheeler. After some days of marriage, there was a demand of Rs. 2 lakh by the accused persons and there was a threat that if they do not fulfill the demand, his daughter would be murdered. On 25.9.2024 at about 9.30 p.m. all the accused persons together murdered his daughter with a sharp-edged weapon. His daughter was having a pregnancy of seven months and the child has also died in the wound. On 26.9.2024 at about 1 p.m. the father-in-law informed him on telephone that his daughter has been murdered by some miscreants after which he reached there and could sense that no miscreant has murdered his daughter but the accused persons have murdered her.

7. The postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted in which the doctor found two incised wounds and one linear abrasion. Even a fetus was found which was of male sex. The cause of death was opined has hemorrhagic shock due to ante- mortem injury consequent upon stabbed wound no.1 and 2 as mentioned in the ante-mortem injury.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is the devar of the deceased Smt. Neeraj. While placing annexure no.7 of the paper book it is submitted that Ajun Singh, the husband of the deceased also received injuries which was medically examined on 26.9.2024 wherein he was found to have received a lacerated wound and a multiple incised wound. Although the doctors opined the injuries to be simple in nature but they are grievous in nature. It is submitted that the present case is a case in which miscreants had attacked the house in which the deceased and her husband were assaulted after which she received injuries and died and her husband also received injuries. It is further submitted that co-accused Vipati Ram has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.2.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2455 of 2025 and co-accused Pooja Devi, the sister-in-law/jethani of the deceased has also been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.1.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2411 of 2025, copies of the said orders have been produced by learned counsel for the applicant which are taken on record. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 20 of the affidavit and is in jail since 27.9.2024.

9. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that in so far as the applicant is concerned, he and the husband of the deceased were in active participation in the matter. It is submitted that the deceased was stabbed mercilessly and has died because of the said injuries. She was having pregnancy of seven months and child in her womb also died. In so far as injuries of Ajun Singh, the husband of the deceased are concerned, the same have been opined to be simple in nature and as such possibility of the same being self inflicted just in order to give the case a different colour cannot be ruled out. The applicant and Ajun Singh were arrested and on the pointing out of Ajun Singh a knife used in the present incident was recovered. In so far as co-accused who have been granted bail are concerned, one of them is the father-in-law and the other is the sister-in-law/jethani and as such their cases are distinguishable with that of the applicant. The applicant is named in the FIR. There are serious allegations against him. The gravity of the offence cannot be left out. The deceased has been murdered mercilessly with a sharp-edged weapon and she has received incised wounds. They have placed before the Court a judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another in SLP (Crl.) No.15156 of 2024, para 15 to buttress their arguments, as such bail application of the applicant be rejected.

10. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the devar of the deceased but the manner of assault in the present matter is very gruesome. The deceased died due to stabbed wounds. The fetus of about seven months also died in her womb. The injuries received by her husband were opined to be simple in nature by the doctor examining it. Co-accused who have been granted bail were the father-in-law and sister-in-law, as such their cases are distinguishable with the case of the applicant.

11. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 Gaurav Kuls (Samit Gopal, J.) GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad