State of U.P v. Party

2. Heard Sri Arvind Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Yogesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the material on record.

3. This is the second bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. filed by the applicant Avnish, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.293 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 302, 201 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Makkhanpur, District- Firozabad.

4. The first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33139 of 2023 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.7.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that trial in the present matter has started in which Rajesh Kumar the first informant and father of the deceased has been examined as P.W.-1, Smt. Kusuma the mother of the deceased has been examined as P.W.-2 and Sanjeev Yadav the cousin brother of the deceased has been examined as P.W.-3 and the said witnesses have stated that information was given to them from the side of the applicant about the said incident. It is submitted that same thus goes to show the conduct of the applicant and his family members is above board. It is 2 BAIL No. 6656 of 2025 submitted that the applicant is in jail since 07.09.2022 and till date only three witnesses have been examined in the trial and thus trial would take time. It is prayed that the prayer for bail of the applicant be considered.

6. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is the second bail. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 28.7.2023. It is submitted that trial in the matter is going on in which three prosecution witnesses have been examined who have supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that there is no such inordinate delay in trial. It is further submitted that as of now the statements of witness of fact have been recorded and formal witnesses only remained to be examined. It is submitted by learned State counsel that he shall also explore the possibility of recording of evidence of the formal witnesses through video conferencing as per rules.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that this is the second bail. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 28.7.2023 by this Court. The said order reads as under:- "1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Arvind Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bare Lal Bind, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Avnish, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 293 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 302, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Makkhanpur, District Firozabad.

4. The First Information Report of the matter was lodged on 26.8.2022, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, by Rajesh Kumar, against the applicant Avnish and five other persons namely Shilendra, Shyam, Akshay, Mukesh and Mahadeep, alleging therein that marriage of his daughter Vineeta was solemnized with Avnish (the applicant) in the year 2013 in which he had spent around 10 lakh as per his status. The 3 BAIL No. 6656 of 2025 accused persons were demanding a four-wheeler vehicle and Rs.2 lakh as dowry. When she informed him about it, he went to the matrimonial house of his daughter and showed his inability but demand continued. In the meantime, his daughter gave birth to a boy who is aged about six years. His daughter left her son to his house due to torture of the accused persons and since then he is residing with him. In the night the accused persons due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry have murdered his daughter and have cremated her. The applicant called him on phone and told him that he has finished his daughter, he may do whatever he wants, on which he immediately gave information to the Police on 112 number after which he went to the house of the applicant where no one was present and then he went to the fields where his daughter was being burnt. In the meantime the Police also arrived and took the remains of the body from the pyre.

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 prosecution story that the applicant informed the first informant that he has finished his daughter is totally unbelievable and the same is just in order to give the case a different colour. It is argued that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased around 10 years back. There was never any demand of dowry. The applicant informed his in-laws regarding death of his wife after which her family members came and participated in the cremation proceedings. While placing para-28 of the affidavit in support of bail application, it is argued that death of the deceased was natural death and cremation proceedings were conducted in the presence of her family members. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para-19 and is in jail since 07.9.2022.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is husband of the deceased. The deceased died in her matrimonial house. The applicant was present at the place of occurrence. It is further argued that even there was an attempt to cremate the dead body of the deceased which after information by the first informant to the police, was taken out from the pyre but it was burnt to such an extent the cause of death could not be deciphered. It is argued that since presence of 4 BAIL No. 6656 of 2025 the applicant at the place of occurrence is not under dispute, burden under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act would come in the way of the applicant. It is argued that the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is husband of the deceased. He is named in the F.I.R. There was demand of dowry by the applicant and other co-accused persons in the nature of four-wheeler vehicle and Rs.2 lakh. The deceased died in her matrimonial house. Presence of the applicant is not disputed. There was an attempt to cremate body of the deceased surreptitiously which after information to the first informant and further to the police by him, the remains of body of the deceased were recovered but cause of death could not be ascertained. The conduct of the applicant is also not above board.

8. Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

9. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. "

8. The trial in the matter is going on and three witnesses have been examined who have supported the prosecution case. The witnesses of fact have been examined and statements of formal witnesses only remained to be recorded. Learned State counsel assures the Court of getting their statements recorded through video conferencing as per rules. He may also explore the possibility of the same and see that there is no inordinate delay in conclusion of trial. No new and fresh ground exists to entertain the bail.

9. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. October 8, 2025 Naresh (Samit Gopal,J.) NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Arvind Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Yogesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the material on record.

3. This is the second bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. filed by the applicant Avnish, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.293 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 302, 201 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Makkhanpur, District- Firozabad.

4. The first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33139 of 2023 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.7.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that trial in the present matter has started in which Rajesh Kumar the first informant and father of the deceased has been examined as P.W.-1, Smt. Kusuma the mother of the deceased has been examined as P.W.-2 and Sanjeev Yadav the cousin brother of the deceased has been examined as P.W.-3 and the said witnesses have stated that information was given to them from the side of the applicant about the said incident. It is submitted that same thus goes to show the conduct of the applicant and his family members is above board. It is 2 BAIL No. 6656 of 2025 submitted that the applicant is in jail since 07.09.2022 and till date only three witnesses have been examined in the trial and thus trial would take time. It is prayed that the prayer for bail of the applicant be considered.

6. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is the second bail. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 28.7.2023. It is submitted that trial in the matter is going on in which three prosecution witnesses have been examined who have supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that there is no such inordinate delay in trial. It is further submitted that as of now the statements of witness of fact have been recorded and formal witnesses only remained to be examined. It is submitted by learned State counsel that he shall also explore the possibility of recording of evidence of the formal witnesses through video conferencing as per rules.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that this is the second bail. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 28.7.2023 by this Court. The said order reads as under:- "1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Arvind Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bare Lal Bind, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Avnish, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 293 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 302, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Makkhanpur, District Firozabad.

4. The First Information Report of the matter was lodged on 26.8.2022, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, by Rajesh Kumar, against the applicant Avnish and five other persons namely Shilendra, Shyam, Akshay, Mukesh and Mahadeep, alleging therein that marriage of his daughter Vineeta was solemnized with Avnish (the applicant) in the year 2013 in which he had spent around 10 lakh as per his status. The 3 BAIL No. 6656 of 2025 accused persons were demanding a four-wheeler vehicle and Rs.2 lakh as dowry. When she informed him about it, he went to the matrimonial house of his daughter and showed his inability but demand continued. In the meantime, his daughter gave birth to a boy who is aged about six years. His daughter left her son to his house due to torture of the accused persons and since then he is residing with him. In the night the accused persons due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry have murdered his daughter and have cremated her. The applicant called him on phone and told him that he has finished his daughter, he may do whatever he wants, on which he immediately gave information to the Police on 112 number after which he went to the house of the applicant where no one was present and then he went to the fields where his daughter was being burnt. In the meantime the Police also arrived and took the remains of the body from the pyre.

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 prosecution story that the applicant informed the first informant that he has finished his daughter is totally unbelievable and the same is just in order to give the case a different colour. It is argued that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased around 10 years back. There was never any demand of dowry. The applicant informed his in-laws regarding death of his wife after which her family members came and participated in the cremation proceedings. While placing para-28 of the affidavit in support of bail application, it is argued that death of the deceased was natural death and cremation proceedings were conducted in the presence of her family members. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para-19 and is in jail since 07.9.2022.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is husband of the deceased. The deceased died in her matrimonial house. The applicant was present at the place of occurrence. It is further argued that even there was an attempt to cremate the dead body of the deceased which after information by the first informant to the police, was taken out from the pyre but it was burnt to such an extent the cause of death could not be deciphered. It is argued that since presence of 4 BAIL No. 6656 of 2025 the applicant at the place of occurrence is not under dispute, burden under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act would come in the way of the applicant. It is argued that the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is husband of the deceased. He is named in the F.I.R. There was demand of dowry by the applicant and other co-accused persons in the nature of four-wheeler vehicle and Rs.2 lakh. The deceased died in her matrimonial house. Presence of the applicant is not disputed. There was an attempt to cremate body of the deceased surreptitiously which after information to the first informant and further to the police by him, the remains of body of the deceased were recovered but cause of death could not be ascertained. The conduct of the applicant is also not above board.

8. Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

9. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. "

8. The trial in the matter is going on and three witnesses have been examined who have supported the prosecution case. The witnesses of fact have been examined and statements of formal witnesses only remained to be recorded. Learned State counsel assures the Court of getting their statements recorded through video conferencing as per rules. He may also explore the possibility of the same and see that there is no inordinate delay in conclusion of trial. No new and fresh ground exists to entertain the bail.

9. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. October 8, 2025 Naresh (Samit Gopal,J.) NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad