High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Upendra Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Abhishek Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mukul Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Suresh Kumar Sharma @ Shani, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 340 of 2024, under Sections 306, 504, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Sen Paschim Para, District Kanpur Nagar.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 28.10.2024 by Baliraj Kumar Pandey against the applicant and six other persons on the basis of an application dated 25.04.2024 moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging therein that his daughter Shivani Sharma was married to the applicant on 07.03.2014. In the marriage he had spent around Rs. 15 lakh. The husband of the deceased in an intoxicated condition used to abuse and assault her. Some days after marriage, there was a demand of a car as dowry from the deceased for which she used to be tortured and harassed. On 17th April, 2024 at about 01:27 am the deceased called him and said that she is unable to sleep and the accused persons are not having good feel and she is having some tension and he may come and take her back. On asking about the children, she stated that they are sleeping. On 17.04.2024 he was preparing to go to bring his daughter wherein at about 06:30 am he received an information from the applicant that his daughter has committed suicide by hanging herself. The FIR was lodged under Sections 302, 498-A, 504, 506 IPC.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case although he is the husband of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased and the applicant were leading happy married life which is evident from the fact that two children from the wedlock were born. It is submitted that the deceased committed suicide and died which is suggestive from the postmortem examination report wherein the deceased was found to have received a single ligature mark and the cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged on the basis of an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is submitted that during investigation, the police converted the present case into a case under Sections 306, 504, 506 IPC and deleted Section 302, 498A IPC. It is submitted that there is no abetment and instigation of any kind by the applicant which has any nexus with the death of the deceased. The applicant has no mens-rea at all. There is no overt act whatsoever of the applicant which resulted in the death of the deceased, the applicant has no motive at all to commit the aforesaid offence. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 22 of the affidavit and is in jail since 05.11.2024.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the conduct of the applicant can be seen from the fact that there was an allegation of torture and harassment of the deceased for demand of dowry. It is submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR and there are allegations against him. It is submitted that the bail of the applicant be rejected.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that initially the FIR was lodged under Sections 302, 498-A, 504, 506 IPC but during investigation the matter was converted into a case under Sections 306, 504, 506 IPC. There is no abetment and instigation of any kind by the applicant which has any nexus with the death of the deceased. The applicant has no mens-rea at all. There is no overt act whatsoever of the applicant which resulted in the death of the deceased, the applicant has no motive at all to commit the aforesaid offence.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Let the applicant Suresh Kumar Sharma @ Shani, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The 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) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. (v) 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 him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

10. 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 and send the applicant to prison.

11. The bail application is allowed.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 23.4.2025/M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Upendra Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Abhishek Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mukul Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Suresh Kumar Sharma @ Shani, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 340 of 2024, under Sections 306, 504, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Sen Paschim Para, District Kanpur Nagar.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 28.10.2024 by Baliraj Kumar Pandey against the applicant and six other persons on the basis of an application dated 25.04.2024 moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging therein that his daughter Shivani Sharma was married to the applicant on 07.03.2014. In the marriage he had spent around Rs. 15 lakh. The husband of the deceased in an intoxicated condition used to abuse and assault her. Some days after marriage, there was a demand of a car as dowry from the deceased for which she used to be tortured and harassed. On 17th April, 2024 at about 01:27 am the deceased called him and said that she is unable to sleep and the accused persons are not having good feel and she is having some tension and he may come and take her back. On asking about the children, she stated that they are sleeping. On 17.04.2024 he was preparing to go to bring his daughter wherein at about 06:30 am he received an information from the applicant that his daughter has committed suicide by hanging herself. The FIR was lodged under Sections 302, 498-A, 504, 506 IPC.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case although he is the husband of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased and the applicant were leading happy married life which is evident from the fact that two children from the wedlock were born. It is submitted that the deceased committed suicide and died which is suggestive from the postmortem examination report wherein the deceased was found to have received a single ligature mark and the cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged on the basis of an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is submitted that during investigation, the police converted the present case into a case under Sections 306, 504, 506 IPC and deleted Section 302, 498A IPC. It is submitted that there is no abetment and instigation of any kind by the applicant which has any nexus with the death of the deceased. The applicant has no mens-rea at all. There is no overt act whatsoever of the applicant which resulted in the death of the deceased, the applicant has no motive at all to commit the aforesaid offence. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 22 of the affidavit and is in jail since 05.11.2024.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the conduct of the applicant can be seen from the fact that there was an allegation of torture and harassment of the deceased for demand of dowry. It is submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR and there are allegations against him. It is submitted that the bail of the applicant be rejected.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that initially the FIR was lodged under Sections 302, 498-A, 504, 506 IPC but during investigation the matter was converted into a case under Sections 306, 504, 506 IPC. There is no abetment and instigation of any kind by the applicant which has any nexus with the death of the deceased. The applicant has no mens-rea at all. There is no overt act whatsoever of the applicant which resulted in the death of the deceased, the applicant has no motive at all to commit the aforesaid offence.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Let the applicant Suresh Kumar Sharma @ Shani, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The 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) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. (v) 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 him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

10. 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 and send the applicant to prison.

11. The bail application is allowed.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 23.4.2025/M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad